Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardRole in Argument

Urban Planner: The proposed elimination of single-family zoning is ultimately unlikely to lower overall housing costs in our city. True, city officials advocate for this change precisely to increase density and reduce costs. But simply removing restrictions usually spurs luxury developments rather than affordable units. Consequently, unless paired with strict affordable housing mandates, relaxing zoning fails to achieve the officials' objective. Yet such mandates deter developers from building at all, severely restricting the new supply needed to bring down market prices.

Which of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that, unless paired with strict affordable housing mandates, relaxing zoning fails to achieve the officials' objective?

  1. It is a subsidiary conclusion that is supported by the claim about luxury developments and that is itself used to support the overall conclusion.Answer
  2. B
    It is the overall conclusion of the argument, which is supported by a premise about the deterrent effect of affordable housing mandates.
  3. C
    It is a premise offered in support of the claim that simply removing zoning restrictions usually spurs luxury developments rather than affordable units.
  4. D
    It is a concession made to the city officials that the urban planner uses to qualify the argument's overall conclusion.
  5. E
    It is a subsidiary conclusion that is supported by the claim that strict affordable housing mandates severely restrict the new housing supply.

Answer

The targeted statement is a subsidiary conclusion that is supported by the claim about luxury developments and that is itself used to support the overall conclusion.
The correct answer accurately describes the dual nature of the targeted statement. The argument's main conclusion is the first sentence. To prove this, the author sets up a dilemma. The targeted statement ('Consequently, unless paired with strict affordable housing mandates, relaxing zoning fails...') is drawn directly from the preceding premise about luxury developments. It functions as an intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion that, when combined with the final sentence regarding the negative effects of mandates, proves the main conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Locate the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is the first sentence: 'The proposed elimination of single-family zoning is ultimately unlikely to lower overall housing costs in our city.'
This is the primary assertion the urban planner is trying to prove, and all other claims in the stimulus are designed to support it.
2
Analyze the logical indicators around the targeted statement.
The targeted statement begins with the structural indicator 'Consequently,' signaling that it is a conclusion drawn from previous information.
Identifying conclusion indicators helps determine whether a claim functions as a premise, a conclusion, or context.
3
Trace the logical support for and from the targeted statement.
The statement is supported by the preceding premise that removing restrictions spurs luxury developments. In turn, it serves as a stepping stone to support the main conclusion.
Because it is supported by a premise and supports the main conclusion, its structural role is definitively that of a subsidiary (or intermediate) conclusion.

Key Concept

Identifying intermediate conclusions and complex logical structures in arguments.
Rate this question

Topics

Role in Argument

More questions from this topic