Politician:  Homelessness is a serious social problem, but further government spending to provide low income housing ...

Naz March 3, 2014

The conclusion of the argument is: "further government spending to provide low income housing is not the cure for homelessness."

Why? We know that "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." Because of this, we infer our intermediary conclusion: "So the frequent claim that people are homeless because of a lack of available housing is wrong."

Answer choice (A) is not correct. The statement "Homelessness is a serious social problem," is not an alternative perspective to the one adopted in the argument. The argument is not saying that homelessness is not a serious social problem. The argument is merely trying to explain why "further government spending to provide low income housing is not the cure for homelessness."

Answer choice (C) is the correct answer. The statement "Homelessness is a serious social problem" is compatible, i.e. able to exist or occur with either accepting the conclusion or denying it. Regardless of whether it is true or not that people are homeless because of a lack of available housing, it does not change the validity of homelessness being a serious social problem, nor does it change the validity of our main conclusion that further government spending to provide low income housing is not the cure for homelessness.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

hales June 18, 2019

What is the difference between an intermediary conclusion and a subsidiary conclusion? Are they the same thing?

Victoria June 18, 2019

Hi @hales

A subsidiary conclusion and an intermediary conclusion are the same thing. They both refer to a "sub-conclusion" or a claim that is supported by one or more other statements but is not the main conclusion. Rather, it is a conclusion that also supports a different claim.

In this example, the passage claims that "there is no lack of housing units available to rent." From this, it draws the subsidiary/intermediary conclusion that "the frequent claim that people are homeless because of a lack of available housing is wrong." However, this is not the main conclusion of the passage. The author uses the above claim and subsidiary/intermediary conclusion to conclude that "further government spending to provide low income housing is not the cure for homelessness."

Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.