The politician concludes that "further government spending to provide low income housing is not the cure for homelessness."
Why? Because looking at the real estate section of a newspaper shows that there are many housing units available to rent. The politician takes this information to draw the subsidiary conclusion that "the frequent claim that people are homeless because of a lack of available housing is wrong." This then supports the politician's ultimate conclusion.
Notice that we have outlined the politician's argument without referring to the introductory clause that "homelessness is a serious social problem." This means that this information is not necessary for the politician to make their argument discrediting one common claim regarding the cause of homelessness.
In this way, we can say agree that homelessness is a serious social problem and reject the politician's conclusion that the government does not need to spend more on low income housing.
We can also accept the politician's conclusion and still agree that homelessness is a serious social problem which requires a different solution than a more government spending on low income housing.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
