Remember: for errors in reasoning questions, we need to evaluate the argument in the stimulus. So let's find the conclusion and the premises and work from there.
The conclusion of the stimulus is that "Chen's plan is better for the city as a whole."
The following premises are offered in support of this conclusion:
P: The principal supporter of Ripley's plan is Smith Stores
P: Smith Stores has supported its own interests in the past, even to the detriment of the city as a whole.
This conclusion does not follow from the premises. Just because Smith Stores has, in the past, supported its own interests, and just because, in the past, those interests were at odds with the best interests of the city, does NOT meant that NOW, today, Smith Stores's support for Ripley's plan means that Ripley's plan is less good for the city than Chen's.
Answer choice (E) parallels this flawed method of reasoning.
The conclusion is "the planned light rail system will clearly serve suburban areas well."
The following premises are offered in support of this conclusion:
P: The main opponent to the planned light rail system is the city government
P: The city government has always ignored the needs of the suburbs and sought only to protect the interests of the city.
Notice how, as in the stimulus, the premises in answer choice (E) speak of past behaviors and, from there, a conclusion is drawn about a present problem? That's a parallel flaw.
Let's briefly consider the other options.
Answer choice (A) is not flawed. There is no past to present problem. The conclusion is about what Centreville should do and the premise is also related to Centreville.
Answer choice (B) is problematic, but not because of a past to present problem. Just because the school board hired consultants at "great expense" does not mean that it should necessarily adopt their plan. But we'll leave that for another day; it's not the answer here.
Answer choice (C) is also not flawed. The argument gives a valid premise in support of its conclusion: because the mayor is addressing the needs of the city as a whole, his budget proposal is preferable to the city council's, which is only looking out for special interests.
Answer choice (D) is also not flawed. Here, too, the premises support the conclusion.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
zgnewquistSeptember 9, 2019
Is there a typo in this? Should it say "the planned light rail system will clearly not serve the suburban areas well?" I do not understand how saying the city has sought its own interests in the past, not the interests of the suburbs, relates to them helping the suburbs now?
