#20 - Politician: Homelessness is a serious social problem

[Clay Cooper]

Hi johnclem,

Thanks for your question.

I think this is what we have:

Premise: There is no lack of housing units available to rent.
Subordinate conclusion: So the frequent claim that people are homeless because of a lack of available housing is wrong.
Main conclusion: Further government spending to provide low-income housing is not the answer for homelessness.

I can definitely understand why you had a hard time identifying the conclusion here; there is a conclusion indicator word (so) introducing a claim that is not, apparently, the main conclusion, but meanwhile, the conclusion does not have any obvious conclusion indicator word with it.

Remember, though, that sometimes subordinate conclusions (like the one seen here) will have conclusion indicator words present just to let you know that the claim that follows is one that was reached by reasoning, and is not pure evidence (which is just handed to us, is not questioned, and involves no reasoning). That does NOT mean, however, that this claim is necessarily the main conclusion; as we see here, it supporters another, logically dependent claim that increased government spending to provide low-income housing is not a solution to the problem of homelessness.

I hope that helps!

[jessamynlockard]

Hi,
Could you please explain why Answer B is wrong?

[Alex Bodaken]

jessamylnlockard,

Thanks for the question! Answer choice (B) is incorrect because the argument is not designed to resolve the problem ("homelessness is a serious social problem"), but instead simply refutes one possible solution. Because the argument isn't designed to solve the problem, as (B) describes, (B) cannot be correct.

Hope that helps!
Alex

[whardy21]

My answer choice was B. Can you explain to me how B is the correct answer? Thanks.

[Brook Miscoski]

whardy, please review the previous responses, which explain why (B) is not the correct choice.

[andriana.caban]

Hi!

I'm just starting out Method of Reasoning questions and want to look at the incorrect answers and try to figure out what might fit each answer.

Can you look at my reasoning below/help me figure out how to do this? Thanks!

A. Would be correct if the stimulus talked about homelessness not being a social problem?

B. Would be correct if the stimulus talked about fixing the social problem

C. CORRECT

D. I'm not sure exactly what this answer choice is saying so I wouldn't know how to alter the argument to make it correct

E. I know what this answer choice is saying but I don't know how to make it correct either

[Zach Foreman]

I think your exercise is a very good one for Method of Reasoning questions or Flaw in the Reasoning questions. However, I don't think it works very well for Method of Reasoning - ARGUMENT PART questions, which is what this is. There are many methods of reasoning one can choose to get to a certain conclusion, so it can be beneficial to try out different ones, such as reduction to absurdity or eliminating alternatives.
What you could do is try to find the parts of the argument the incorrect answers are describing. So the fact that there is no lack of housing is "required in order to establish the conclusion." which is answer choice E. " further government spending to provide low-income housing" is D and so on. The two Method of Reasoning question types are related but quite distinct categories and require different approaches.

[pavandeep9]

Hello,

I understand how (C) can be correct, the statement "Homelessness is a serious social problem" is compatible with accepting or denying the conclusion.

I do not understand however, how (D) is incorrect. (D) states "It summarizes a position the argument as a whole is directed toward discrediting." According to my interpretation of the stimulus, I think the author is trying to argue homelessness is in fact not a serious social problem (which is why I did not choose C). The word 'but' in the first sentence directs the reader away from supporting the statement that homelessness is in fact a serious social problem, and the rest of the stimulus follows accordingly. Thus, it seems to me that a position is stated, namely homelessness being a serious social problem, and consequently every stimulus sentence is in my opinion trying to discredit the fact that it is purely a social problem (which would require government intervention, perhaps via increasing low-income housing). It seems to me that if it were a serious social problem, government intervention would likely be required (here I'm equating government with social).

I suspect that my degree in Political Science/ Econ/ Psych might be playing a serious role in my interpretation of this stimulus,
Thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration,
I appreciate it!

[Dave Killoran]

Hello,

I understand how (C) can be correct, the statement "Homelessness is a serious social problem" is compatible with accepting or denying the conclusion.

I do not understand however, how (D) is incorrect. (D) states "It summarizes a position the argument as a whole is directed toward discrediting." According to my interpretation of the stimulus, I think the author is trying to argue homelessness is in fact not a serious social problem (which is why I did not choose C). The word 'but' in the first sentence directs the reader away from supporting the statement that homelessness is in fact a serious social problem, and the rest of the stimulus follows accordingly. Thus, it seems to me that a position is stated, namely homelessness being a serious social problem, and consequently every stimulus sentence is in my opinion trying to discredit the fact that it is purely a social problem (which would require government intervention, perhaps via increasing low-income housing). It seems to me that if it were a serious social problem, government intervention would likely be required (here I'm equating government with social).

I suspect that my degree in Political Science/ Econ/ Psych might be playing a serious role in my interpretation of this stimulus,
Thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration,
I appreciate it!

Hi Pavan,

Thanks for the question! It may well be that your background is influencing you, but then again, this is also a really tough problem.

The key to your position is your analysis of the use of "but" in the first sentence. However, I think you have erred there The word "but" can be used in a "despite that" or "yet" sense, which is how the test makers intended it here. For example, consider the following: "I have to go to my ex-girlfriend's wedding but it will still be a fun time." The "but" there isn't a denial of having to go to the wedding.

As a response to (D), the argument is actually directed towards discrediting the position that low-income housing is the cure/cause, and note how the remainder of the stimulus goes on to discuss that point.

Thanks!

[pavandeep9]

The key to your position is your analysis of the use of "but" in the first sentence. However, I think you have erred there The word "but" can be used in a "despite that" or "yet" sense, which is how the test makers intended it here. For example, consider the following: "I have to go to my ex-girlfriend's wedding but it will still be a fun time." The "but" there isn't a denial of having to go to the wedding.
As a response to (D), the argument is actually directed towards discrediting the position that low-income housing is the cure/cause, and note how the remainder of the stimulus goes on to discuss that point.
Thanks!

I will be more cognizant when interpreting the word 'but' in the future. In your stated example, the interpretation of the word 'but' would clearly connotate a "despite that" sense because of the stark contrast elicited by the semantic context, but I believe the stimulus however was rather subtle. I also believe I might have assumed too much with respect to equating government supplied low income housing as a serious social solution. As I become more familiar with the LSAT questions I will keep track of how the authors use 'but' to fully understand its variety of applications. Thank you so much for the clarification and your prompt reply, I appreciate it!