Hi val,
I find it helpful to rephrase answer choice D just a bit to see how it fits what I'm looking for.
But first, a word on what we're looking for. The ideal principle to strengthen any argument is one that ties the premises to the conclusion conditionally. But you have to make sure that the conditional connection "flows" in the right direction. It needs to be [Premises]
[Conclusion]. In other words, the premise information should be put into the sufficient condition, and the conclusion information should be put into the necessary condition.
Here, what I'm looking for is something like: IF most places have plenty of parking and little traffic congestion (i.e. they don't have the problems the city council was concerned about), THEN we should not prohibit food trucks from parking (i.e. the food trucks should not be put at a disadvantage).
If we translate answer choice D into its conditional form, it says this: IF a problem does not affect most areas of the city, THEN a law that would disadvantage businesses of a certain type throughout a city should not be used to solve the problem. What that means in this context is that if the parking and traffic congestion problems do not affect most areas of the city (as the premises say they don't), then we should not be disadvantaging food trucks (by prohibiting them from parking) to solve that problem. That's a really close match to our prephrase and is a great principle to strengthen the conclusion that the bill should be rejected.
I hope this helps!
Jeremy Press
LSAT Instructor and law school admissions consultant
Follow me on Twitter at:
https://twitter.com/JeremyLSAT
