Let's break down the argument. We know that everyone at the neighborhood association meeting agreed that the the row of abandoned and vandalized houses poses a threat to the safety of the neighborhood.
No one disputes the fact that getting the houses torn down would have eliminated that threat.
However, some people argued that demolition was unnecessary because they claimed that the buildings were basically sound, since the city had established a fund to help people in need of housing buy and rehabilitate such buildings.
The author then concludes that due to the overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, the majority who favored demolition were right and those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by rehabilitating the houses were wrong.
This is clearly a flawed argument. The fact that the other option (i.e. demolition strategy) was successful tells us nothing about the viability of the other option (i.e. rehabilitation).
The question stem, however, is asking us to identify the principle that WILL determine which of these options was the right decision. So this is a Strengthen with Sufficient Principle question but notice that we aren't limited to guaranteeing the conclusion here. We are trying to find the principle that allows us to choose one of the two options over the other.
Answer choice (A) is incorrect because it does not allow us to select which option is correct. (A) says that when what to do about an abandoned neighborhood building is in dispute, which is the situation presented in the stimulus:
not CAMH ===> TNS not TNS ===> CAMH
CAMH = course of action that would result in the most housing for people who need it TNS = threat to neighborhood safety
We know from the stimulus that the row of abandoned and vandalized houses posed a threat to the safety of the neighborhood. However, this is the necessary condition in (A), so it would not allow us to determine anything else.
Answer choice (B), on the other hand, helps us determine which approach is the right decision. Let's piece it apart.
(B) states that "when there are two proposals for solving a neighborhood problem," which is our current situation (i.e. either to demolish or rehabilitate) "and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory," (i.e. demolishing the houses would preclude rehabilitating them because there would be no abandoned houses to rehabilitate) "then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted," (i.e. rehabilitation because it does not foreclose the possibility of demolition should be adopted).
Answer choice (B) clearly determines that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition (i.e. rehabilitation) should have been the one adopted.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
Julie-VAugust 15, 2019
Can you further expand the last part of (B)'s explanation? To me it sounds as if it says the rehabilitation approach should be the one adopted because it wouldn't foreclose the option to demolish. But isn't the stimulus saying that those who favored demolition was right and those who favored rehabilitation were wrong?
Thanks!
RaviAugust 15, 2019
@Julie-V,
Happy to help. Let's look at (B).
(B) says, "When there are two proposals for solving a neighborhood problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted."
(B) is confusing, but it's the correct answer choice. If you demolish houses, you can't then rehabilitate them—they're gone. On the other hand, if you try to rehabilitate them, you can always demolish them later. This answer says to take the approach that doesn't rule out the other one. That would mean that they definitely should have tried rehabilitating the houses.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
Claudia-FrankelJune 11, 2020
I'm confused...the question stem asks which principle "would determine that demolishing houses was the right decision OR instead would determine.." How could answer choice B establish that demolishing was the right decision? It seems that it only establishes the latter that it wasn't the right decision. Thanks in advance!
SkylarJune 14, 2020
@Claudia-Frankel, happy to help!
We are asked to select the answer choice that "would determine that demolishing the houses was the right decision or instead would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted." As you point out, "or" is key here. The correct answer choice will either do one of two things: (1) determine that demolishing was the right decision (2) determine that renovating would have been the right decision
In other words, the answer choice will determine what the right decision is.
(B) determines that renovating would have been the right decision, as explained earlier in this message board thread. It does not determine that demolishing was the right decision, but this is okay because it doesn't have to. It only needs to do one of the two things we identified, and it does the second.
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
