- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon May 02, 2016 11:53 am
#23748
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
Lucien concludes that the many homeless people in the city do not indicate that there is insufficient housing and that more low-income housing is needed.
Lucien attempts to support that conclusion by arguing that the many apartment vacancies he knows of mean that housing is available, so homelessness is not caused by housing but rather is caused by an inability or unwillingness to work.
Maria points out that many of the homeless in the city hold regular jobs, which directly attacks Lucien's proposed cause.
Lucien's argument is also vulnerable to the critique that he acts as if vacant housing is affordable. It is possible that more low-income housing is needed, even if there are vacancies in the apartment buildings of "professionals."
This question asks you to identify the flaw in Lucien's argument, so you should focus on the fact that Lucien treats "vacant" and "affordable" as the same.
Answer choice (A): Lucien claims that it is absurd to believe that the homeless indicate a particular conclusion about housing; Lucien does not attack the proposition that there are many homeless people in the city. This choice is wrong.
Answer choice (B): It might be a flaw to treat information from informal conversation as though it provides evidence on par with that from scientific studies; however, Lucien does not clearly discuss scientific studies. Furthermore, the main flaw is that Lucien generalizes too quickly from his data, whether or not that data accurately describes his and his colleagues' immediate areas.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Clearly, the public-housing advocates meant to treat only affordable housing as "available," but Lucien responds as if any vacant housing is "available," so Lucien's argument is based on equivocation, or in a broader sense on an uncertain use of a term.
Answer choice (D): Since Lucien argues merely that there are many vacancies, not that every building has vacancies, you should not conclude that he overlooks the possibility that some buildings do not have available rooms. You may argue that Lucien does generalize too quickly from an area in which "professionals" live to areas in which others might live; however, that is not the same as Lucien assuming that every single apartment building has vacancies, so this choice inadequately describes a potential flaw, and is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): The issue of who would pay for the development was not raised, so Lucien does not commit a flaw by not responding to it. This choice does not accurately describe the stimulus, and is therefore incorrect.
Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
Lucien concludes that the many homeless people in the city do not indicate that there is insufficient housing and that more low-income housing is needed.
Lucien attempts to support that conclusion by arguing that the many apartment vacancies he knows of mean that housing is available, so homelessness is not caused by housing but rather is caused by an inability or unwillingness to work.
Maria points out that many of the homeless in the city hold regular jobs, which directly attacks Lucien's proposed cause.
Lucien's argument is also vulnerable to the critique that he acts as if vacant housing is affordable. It is possible that more low-income housing is needed, even if there are vacancies in the apartment buildings of "professionals."
This question asks you to identify the flaw in Lucien's argument, so you should focus on the fact that Lucien treats "vacant" and "affordable" as the same.
Answer choice (A): Lucien claims that it is absurd to believe that the homeless indicate a particular conclusion about housing; Lucien does not attack the proposition that there are many homeless people in the city. This choice is wrong.
Answer choice (B): It might be a flaw to treat information from informal conversation as though it provides evidence on par with that from scientific studies; however, Lucien does not clearly discuss scientific studies. Furthermore, the main flaw is that Lucien generalizes too quickly from his data, whether or not that data accurately describes his and his colleagues' immediate areas.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Clearly, the public-housing advocates meant to treat only affordable housing as "available," but Lucien responds as if any vacant housing is "available," so Lucien's argument is based on equivocation, or in a broader sense on an uncertain use of a term.
Answer choice (D): Since Lucien argues merely that there are many vacancies, not that every building has vacancies, you should not conclude that he overlooks the possibility that some buildings do not have available rooms. You may argue that Lucien does generalize too quickly from an area in which "professionals" live to areas in which others might live; however, that is not the same as Lucien assuming that every single apartment building has vacancies, so this choice inadequately describes a potential flaw, and is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): The issue of who would pay for the development was not raised, so Lucien does not commit a flaw by not responding to it. This choice does not accurately describe the stimulus, and is therefore incorrect.
