PrepTest 94+, Section 2, Question 18
Dapolito: The city council recently passed a rent-control ordinance. But a recent study of fifteen local communities shows clearly that rent control increases the price and lowers the quality and availability of rental units. Thus, it can be concluded that it is not the city council's objective to preserve the quality and availability of local rentals.
Dapolito: The city council recently passed a rent-control ordinance. But a recent study of fifteen local communities shows clearly that rent control increases the price and lowers the quality and availability of rental units. Thus, it can be concluded that it is not the city council's objective to preserve the quality and availability of local rentals.
Dapolito: The city council recently passed a rent-control ordinance. But a recent study of fifteen local communities shows clearly that rent control increases the price and lowers the quality and availability of rental units. Thus, it can be concluded that it is not the city council's objective to preserve the quality and availability of local rentals.
Dapolito: The city council recently passed a rent-control ordinance. But a recent study of fifteen local communities shows clearly that rent control increases the price and lowers the quality and availability of rental units. Thus, it can be concluded that it is not the city council's objective to preserve the quality and availability of local rentals.
Dapolito's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
The recent study of local rent-control ordinances was conducted by impartial investigators.
Rent control is not an appropriate topic for consideration by the city council.
The members of the city council who voted for rent control agree with the study's conclusions about rent control.
Some members of the city council who voted for rent control stand to profit from rent control.
The city council sometimes acts in an arbitrary and irrational manner.
Explanations
This is a rough argument. Dapolito tells us: (1) the city council passed rent control, which we must accept as true, and (2) a recent study of a significant number of communities shows clearly that rent control raises prices and worsens the quality of rentals, which we must also accept as true. But then Dapolito concludes that the city council's objective is not to preserve the quality and availability of local rentals.
Huh? Why does that have to be the case, Dapolito? What if the council acted prior to the results of the study being published? We can't make this conclusion without adding some more evidence, which is why I'm expecting either a necessary or sufficient assumption question...
Ding ding ding: Sufficient Assumption.
Our job is now to make Dapolito's argument win. We have to take it from unproven to proven.
First step: identify the gap between evidence provided and conclusion made. We need to completely address the disparity between the results of the study and the council's goals regarding rentals. In other words, we need to guarantee that the council members who passed the rent control not only knew about the study (or at least some corroborating data that matched the study) but also thought it was correct. That would guarantee Dapolito's conclusion: that the council's overall goal isn't rental quality and access.
Remember, sufficient assumptions are always 100% predictable. You can always come up with a hypothetical answer of your own that proves the argument. If you didn't predict, here. Now's your opportunity to incorporate prediction into your study habits.
Let's find our prediction in the answer choices:
Nah, this leaves the argument in pretty much the same spot. This doesn't close the gap on Dapolito's conclusion, it merely substantiates that the study conducted was a credible study.
No. This doesn't help us understand (much less guarantee) what the council's goals were. Even if we grant this to be true, they still passed the rent control. Passing something that wasn't appropriate for their review doesn't mean their goals are anti-rental.
Perfect. This is an almost verbatim match to our prediction. If the members who approved the rent control ordinance (1) knew about the study and (2) agreed with its results, then they clearly don't want affordable, quality rentals in their city. This proves Dapolito's argument, so it's our answer.
No, this is a trap. Just because some members who voted "yes" might have nefarious intentions doesn't mean that the council's goals were anti-rental.
Hah! No. This is a laughably bad answer choice. If the council acts irrationally / arbitrarily, we wouldn't be able to conclude anything about their behavior in any one instance, much less prove Dapolito's argument.
0 Comments