Politician: Homelessness is a serious social problem, but further government spending to provide low income housing ...
rwhelenJune 25, 2015
Why C?
I understand that the conclusion of the argument is that people are not homeless because of the lack of available housing, but I do not understand what role the statement, "homelessness is a serious social problem" plays in the argument.
I selected answer B for this question, because I believed that this statement is a general premise and while it does not necessarily strengthen or weaken the conclusion, it serves to introduce the subject of the argument.
Would you please explain 1) Why is answer C correct? 2) Why is B wrong? 3) What role does the statement play in the argument? (Please break down the argument into sections as Mehran does in the lecture.
Thanks!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
The argument is not trying to resolve the serious social problem of homelessness. The argument is merely stating that further government spending to provide low income housing is not the cure for homelessness.
The conclusion is this last portion of the first sentence: "further government spending to provide low income housing is not the cure for homelessness."
The evidence given for this conclusion is that even a quick glance at the real estate section of any major newspaper is sufficient to show that there is not a lack of housing units available to rent.
As you can see, the argument is merely trying to prove the frequent claim that people are homeless due to lack of available housing wrong, rather than trying to solve the problem of homelessness.
This is why answer choice (B) is incorrect. You can find the answers to your other questions by reading the previous threads for this question.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
stormbeelerAugust 29, 2015
I'm confused on what the conclusion is in earlier threads it is the last sentence, but I can see how the one stated above works as well. Is it the main conclision? Thanks
NazSeptember 1, 2015
You have hit the nail on the head. The main conclusion is: further government spending to provide low income housing is not the cure for homelessness. The other conclusion discussed is merely subsidiary or intermediary conclusion. Nice catch!
