AthenaDalton wrote:Hi bk1111,
This question asks us to find a principle that, if established, would definitively prove one of the two sides of this debate right.
Answer choice (D) is incorrect because, by its own terms, it makes it impossible for us to determine whether demolishing the houses was the right decision.
Answer choice (D) states up front that no plan that "requires demolishing . . . houses" should be carried out until all other alternatives have been investigated. However, we know that the neighborhood association went ahead and demolished the Carlton Street houses without considering other alternatives. So there's no way that we can know whether demolishing the houses was the right decision, after all.
Answer choice (B), by contrast, can be applied to what happened (demolishing the houses without prior investigation of alternatives) and give us a conclusive answer that the pro-demolition group was wrong.
I hope this helps!
I've been thinking about this question for a while, because I was also tripped up by D. Is my thinking here correct: according to D, we should investigate other options (eg: rehabilitation of the houses) but D doesn't specify what the next step after that will be. So we've investigated our options - now what? Should we (continue to) rehabilitate, or should we demolish? Is that correct?