@B let's take a look. The conclusion here is, " . . . further government spending to provide low income housing is not the cure for homelessness."
The support provided?
Premise: "The most cursory glance at the real estate section of any major newspaper is enough to show that there is no lack of housing units available to rent."
Subsidiary Conclusion: "So the frequent claim that people are homeless because of a lack of available housing is wrong."
Notice how the claim that "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 correct, this statement is compatible with accepting the conclusion (i.e. further government spending to provide low income housing is not the cure for homelessness) or with denying it (i.e. further government spending to provide low income housing is the cure for homelessness).
(E) does not work because the statement "homelessness is a serious social problem" is not required for the conclusion. Notice that when you negate (E), i.e. homelessness is not a serious social problem," it does not destroy the argument. In fact, you can argue that the negation of (E) somewhat strengthens the conclusion.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
