Which one of the following, if true, would most weaken the position that the passage attributes to critics of the New...

alliehall21 on June 29, 2020

^^^^^^^^^^^

zarin on August 5, 2020

^^^^

Abigail-Lee on August 9, 2020

^^

EugeneC on August 11, 2020

^^^ Me too, also, that awkward moment you spend a ton of money on this app and it takes them in excess of 3 months to get back to you. Like multiple official tests have happened since this question was asked...

EugeneC on August 11, 2020

I would like a more thorough explanation than the small one I am going to attempt to provide.

In the last paragraph, it states

"Opponents of New Urbanism claim that migration
to sprawling suburbs is an expression of people's
legitimate desire to secure the enjoyment and
personal mobility provided by the automobile and the
(50) lifestyle that it makes possible. "

The key phrase here "an expression of people's legitimate desire"
So opponents (critics) of new Urbanism argue that people move to areas with urban sprawl due an act of their own free will and accord (legitimate desire); however, if they move there due to price issues, then they are not moving there out of their own free will, but rather out of necessity, which weakens the opponents' argument that people move there out of legitimate desire, rather than by some other reason such as limited choices.

I may be wrong, but this is how I interpret the question and answer.

Ravi on August 13, 2020

@Maria-Marin, @alliehall21, @zarin, @EugeneC, and @Abigail-Lee, happy to help.

The question says, "Which one of the following, if true, would most
weaken the position that the passage attributes to critics of the New
Urbanists?"

This question is asking us to weaken the critics' stance. The critics
of New Urbanism come up in the final paragraph, and they make the
argument that people move to the suburbs because they have a genuine
desire for mobility and the lifestyle that suburban life brings with
it. For us, if we can come up with an alternative cause for these
folks moving to the suburbs, we will weaken the critics' argument
because we will weaken the causal relationship they're positing.

(D) is great because it provides us with an alternative cause. If it's
actually the case that expense has deterred people from living in
comparable housing out of the suburbs, then the critics' contention
that mobility is the big force behind the decision to live in the
suburbs is much less likely to be true. Thus, (D) is the correct
answer choice.

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