Hi, @Nouri, thank you for your question. This is an Argument Structure question. The question stem asks us to identify the function played in the stimulus by the claim that "homelessness is a serious social problem."
Let's first examine the stimulus itself. The politician speaking is advancing an argument. His conclusion is "further government spending to provide low income housing is not the cure for homelessness." This assertion is supported by the following premises: (1) there is no lack of housing units available to rent, so (2) the frequent claim that people are homeless because of a lack of available housing is wrong.
Notice how the first part of the stimulus--"homeless is a serious social problem"--does not figure into this argument in any way. It is background information that is not necessary for the argument. It also does not undermine or weaken the argument in any way. Thus, answer choice (C) is right--this statement "is compatible either with accepting the conclusion or with denying it."
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
estherJune 7, 2018
Why is "so the frequent claim that people are homeless because of a lack of available housing is wrong' not the conclusion. it has a conclusion indicator
ChristopherJune 8, 2018
@esther, it functions as premise but is, in essence, an intermediate conclusion. The politician is saying that since there seems to be no shortage of housing, then the claim that lack of available housing is causing homelessness is wrong, but he then uses that argument to support his overall conclusion that "further government spending to provide low income housing is not the cure for homelessness." So it's not that the sentence could not function as a conclusion, but it is not the conclusion of the overall discussion.
