The second paragraph most strongly supports the inference that the New Urbanists make which one of the following assu...

Ravi on August 4, 2019

@Milo-Hammer,

Happy to help. Let's take a look.

The question asks, "The second paragraph most strongly supports the
inference that the New Urbanists make which one of the following
assumptions?"

We are looking for an assumption that the New Urbanists made in the
second paragraph of the passage. Because the New Urbanists had a lot
to say in the second paragraph, this is really hard to anticipate.
However, similar to strengthen with sufficient premise questions, we
can negate each of the answer choices to find the correct answer
choice to make this question simpler for us. The correct answer, when
negated, will make the New Urbanist's argument worse.

(A) says, "Most of those who buy houses in sprawling suburbs do not
pay drastically less than they can afford."

When we negate (A), it says that some people who buy houses pay less
than they can afford. If this were true, then it'd be possible to have
people in the same neighborhood who have different economic
classes/statuses. Because one of the New Urbanists' positions is that
suburban sprawl results in economic segregation, negating (A) would
really hurt their argument. Thus, this is how we know that (A) is the
correct answer choice.

(B) says, "Zoning regulations often cause economically uniform suburbs
to become economically diverse."

When we negate (B), it says that zoning regulations never result in
economically uniform suburbs becoming economically diverse. Negating
(B) strengthens the New Urbanists' position, as they believe that
suburban sprawl results in economic segregation. Thus, we can get rid
of this answer choice.

(C) says, "City dwellers who do not frequently travel in automobiles
often have feelings of hostility toward motorists."

When we negate (C), it says that city dwellers who travel in
automobiles have feelings of hostility toward motorists. However, this
negation would actually strengthen the New Urbanists' position, as
this is one of the effects that they believed car travel to have, so
we can get rid of (C).

(D) says, "Few residents of suburbs are aware of the potential health
benefits of walking, instead of driving, to carry out daily tasks."

With (D), we don't even have to negate it because the health benefits
of walking are totally irrelevant to the New Urbanists' point, so we
can get rid of this answer choice due to its irrelevance.

(E) says, "People generally prefer to live in houses that look very
similar to most of the other houses around them."

With (E), the appearance of houses doesn't have any bearing or
influence on the New Urbanists' argument, so we don't have to negate
this one either. All the New Urbanists care about is how much the
houses cost, so (E) is out.

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

Anthony-Wurst on July 3, 2021

Thanks, Ravi. Are we to assume that when we encounter a 'most strongly support' question, we can use this negation trick to arrive at the correct answer in every case? If not, how does one knw when negating answer choices is an appropriate strategy?

kathy818 on August 28, 2022

^I have the same question as Anthony!

Emil-Kunkin on September 1, 2022

Yep, this is a good approach for most strongly supported questions!