Politician: Homelessness is a serious social problem, but further government spending to provide low–income housing i...

keri-lynn on April 7, 2021

I agree, can someone break this down please?

aayllajaffery.1@gmail.com on September 16, 2021

why not B?

veda on October 11, 2021

Yes please, why not B

Matthew-Rohrback on November 8, 2021

I'm just another test-taker here so please consider this with a grain of salt, but I rejected (B) because the conclusion of the argument doesn't actually "solve" the problem that "homelessness is a serious social problem."

Instead, the conclusion seems to be dealing with a specific question regarding the larger homelessness problem: whether or not "further government spending to provide low–income housing" is an appropriate solution. The conclusion "people are homeless because of a lack of available housing is wrong" only addresses the specific proposal of increased government spending on low-income housing.

In my reasoning, in order for the argument to try to "solve" the problem of homelessness, the conclusion would have needed to propose a solution, rather than solely rejecting a proposed solution.

medasmx@protonmail.com on March 1, 2022

isnt C saying that "homeless a serious problem" doesnt affect the conclusion. that the argument does not question whether homelessness is a serious problem.

Emil-Kunkin on March 23, 2022

The argument is not in fact trying to solve homelessness, rather the author is rejecting one approach to solve homelessness. The statement in question is just a fact, that is meant to introduce the politicians argument. Regardless of if you believe more government spending on low income housing is needed, one could agree that homelessness is bad.