Everyone at the meeting agreed that abandoned houses are a safety threat. No one disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat. Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish sound buildings since the city had established a fund to buy these buildings. The success of the demolition strategy proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and those who claimed that the problem could be solved by rehabilitating houses could be wrong.
This is a classic logical fallacy pattern where the speaker argues that because A is right, B must be wrong. Since demolition successfully eliminated the safety threat, rehabilitation must have failed. The argument fails to take into consideration the possibility that the same result could have been achieved through other means, i.e. rehabilitation instead of demolition.
Let's look at the answer choices:
(A) relies on fear rather than on argument
Incorrect. The speaker is not trying to persuade the neighborhood association to reject any policy, he merely argues that their decision to demolish was right to begin with, and he is using the evidence of the desired outcome - no more safety threat - in support of his argument, not fear.
(B) fails to establish that anyone would buy/ rehabilitate these houses
Incorrect. The argument concludes that demolition was right because it worked not because no one could attempt rehabilitation. Even if the argument established that there were people willing to buy these houses, the author could come to the same flawed conclusion.
(C) mistakenly equates the absence of vocal public dissent with the presence of universal support
Incorrect. The point of the speaker's argument is to conclude who is right rather than what measure got the most support.
(D) offers no evidence that the policy advocated by opponents would not have succeeded
Bingo. It is impossible to conclude that just because A succeeded, B would necessarily fail.
(E) does not specify the precise nature of the threat to neighborhood safety
Incorrect. The precise nature of the threat is irrelevant, the argument focuses on comparing two measures that presumably would address the threat regardless of its exact nature.
Does this make sense?
Let me know if you have any further questions.
AddisonPattonAugust 28, 2019
That helps. Thank you!
RaviAugust 29, 2019
@AddisonPatton, let us know if you have any other questions!
