#17 - Council member: The preservation of individual

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Resolve the Paradox. The correct answer choice is (D)

Even though the preservation of individual property rights is important to the city council, property owners are prohibited from making extensive alterations to their homes. To reconcile the inconsistency between the council’s commitment to property rights and the restrictive nature of the zoning laws, look for an answer that explains how a rule that restricts property rights can ultimately serve or protect those rights. After all, individual property rights are not a license to do whatever one wants – if that were so, some owners can easily infringe on other owners’ rights, thus violating the very right they seek to enact.

Answer choice (A): The occasional exemption from restrictive zoning laws does not reconcile the goal of protecting property rights with the reality of having laws that restrict them. This answer choice does not reconcile the inconsistency between the two and is therefore incorrect.

Answer choice (B): Avoiding an increase in property taxes may be a reason why owners should maintain the current laws, but it cannot explain why the laws are consistent with the goal of protecting individual property rights. This answer choice does not reconcile the inconsistency between the two and is therefore incorrect.

Answer choice (C): Who places more importance on property rights – the city council or the property owners – introduces a comparison that is irrelevant to reconciling the inconsistency between the commitment to property rights and the restrictive nature of the zoning laws.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If an individual’s property rights can be infringed upon by other people altering their own property, then the zoning laws serve to protect those rights, not violate them. The zoning laws are therefore consistent with the city council’s commitment to protecting individual property rights.

Answer choice (E): The fact that zoning laws ensure that property rights are not overly extensive is the very problem we seek to reconcile with the city council’s commitment to protecting property rights. Reaffirming the paradox will not help resolve it.

[lathlee]

Hi. Can you explain the answer choice D) in more easier and cohesive term in easiest possible words and vocabularies possible. Also, can you provide an example of answer d ) infringing individual's property rights by other people altering their own property, serve both of preseving individual property rights whilst property owners' actions are restricted. I just don't get and understand the whole situation.

[Adam Tyson]

I'll try, lathlee!

In the stimulus we are told that property rights are very important, and yet those rights are very restricted because people cannot alter their property. We need to find an answer that resolves that apparent paradox.

Answer D tells us that the restrictions are there to protect owners' rights. If you alter your property, you might violate your neighbor's rights. Preventing alterations protects your neighbor's rights, even if it restricts yours.

Here's an example, one from the real world that involved my neighbors. Mister Jones built a very tall fence around his property. This blocked a lot of sunlight and attractive views for his neighbor, Miss Smith. Jones' fence infringed on Smith's right to enjoy the sunshine and nice views from her property. The restrictions in this problem would have protected her rights, even if it restricted his.

I hope that helps make sense of it for you!

[simonsap]

This one got me because I misinterpreted the tone of the argument. I thought the council member was being critical.

Instead, the question was asking to justify why the council member supported the restriction of property owners - something that was not immediately apparent. In that case, answer choice D becomes obvious.

[Karlhoff]

I interpreted the question "Which one of the following provides a resolution to the apparent inconsistency described ..." to mean "Which one of the following provides an action that solves the apparent inconsistency described ...". Rather than explaining the paradox, I was attempting to identify something that would fix the paradox.

I selected option A) because it would expand an individual's property rights. I now understand the intent of the question and your explanation is very helpful.

Have you ever seen a question where the aim is to fix or address the paradox?

[Robert Carroll]

Karlhoff,

Resolve the Paradox questions always involve explaining the situation, not altering it. Altering it would precisely not resolve the paradox, as it would sidestep it.

Note that answer choice (A) doesn't resolve that paradox in any way.

Robert Carroll