Argument Structure Questions - - Question 18

Economist:  To the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing, it should not be assumed that th...

Shiyi-Zhang January 12, 2019

Why is (C) incorrect?

Why is (C) incorrect?

Replies
Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Shiyi-Zhang January 15, 2019

Why is answer choice C incorrect? Could someone explain it to me please?

Ravi January 16, 2019

@Shiyi-Zhang,

Happy to help!

The argument starts off by qualifying itself with the first part of
the first sentence. "To the extent that homelessness arises from a
lack of available housing" is used as a way to limit the scope of the
author's argument. Then, the author reveals her conclusion: it
shouldn't be assumed that the profit motive is at fault.

We're then provided with support: private investors, in general,
provide housing if the market allows them to make a profit, and it's
unrealistic to expect investors to take risks unless there's something
in it for them.

The question asks us to identify the role played in the economist's
argument by the phrase "to the extent that homelessness arises from a
lack of available housing." We know from our argument analysis that
this phrase is used to qualify the argument and limit its scope to a
certain subset. Let's look at the answers.

Answer A says the phrase limits the application of the argument to a
part of the problem. This is exactly what we had said the phrase does
before going into the answers, so this is the correct answer and our
choice.

Answer B is incorrect because the phrase in no way suggests that the
primary cause of homelessness is a lack of available housing. It could
be true that the primary cause of homelessness is mental illness or
some other cause; this could be totally consistent with the argument.

Answer C is incorrect because the phrase is not evidence, it's just
qualifying the argument. The evidence for the author's conclusion is
provided after the conclusion is made in the stimulus, as our analysis
above points out.

Answer D is incorrect because the phrase is not the conclusion; the
argument's conclusion is that it shouldn't be assumed that the profit
motive is at fault.

Answer E is incorrect because the phrase is not suggesting a solution
to the problem; it's just stating a qualification for the argument and
is narrowing the scope of the argument to a particular parameter.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

Hanoi-Avila2 March 2, 2020

Would you mind explain the difference between a qualifying effect vs. a premise effect over a conclusion?