- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 938
- Joined: Apr 26, 2012
- Tue May 19, 2020 12:39 pm
#75566
Hi lewisdu77!
You raise a great question! The words you mention--some/several/many--all indicate some quantity more than one, but not much beyond that. If we're given a piece of information about "some/several/many" members of a given group, for example, we don't know whether the information pertains to a majority or minority of the group. By contrast, the word "most" provides more specificity, indicating a majority.
Here, the question specifically asks about paragraph 2. In that paragraph, the New Urbanists are clearly making an assumption that could be diagrammed as:
segregated housing prices
socioeconomic segregation
In other words, the New Urbanists are assuming that the fact that there subdivisions are segregated into clusters of same-priced houses implies that the people living in them must be making the same income--that uniformity in housing prices of a subdivision implies socioeconomic uniformity. However, this assumes that there is a close connection between a person's socioeconomic situation and what they spend on their house--some, for example, might be "house poor" while others might have considerable discretionary income.
This assumption is reflected in (A): "Most of those who buy houses in sprawling suburbs do not pay drastically less than they can afford." To test whether it is correct, apply the Assumption Negation technique--negate the answer choice, and see if the argument falls apart; if it does, that is the correct answer. Negating (A), we would have: "Most of those who buy houses in sprawling suburbs do pay drastically less than they can afford." The New Urbanists' argument would no longer hold if this were true--if it were true, then we don't know whether or not segregated housing prices has the effect of socioeconomic segregation. Since the argument would fall apart without this assumption reflected in (A), we know it is the correct answer.
Answer (A) would have a more ambiguous, less specific meaning if it instead read, "Some/several/many of those who buy houses in sprawling suburbs do not pay drastically less than they can afford." Negating this reword, we would have: "Some/several/many of those who buy houses in sprawling suburbs do pay drastically less than they can afford." Since we don't know whether some/several/many refers to a majority or not, this could be true and yet there could still be socioeconomic segregation resulting from house price segregation. That is, some/several/many might only be a small minority, in which case the New Urbanists' argument could still hold. Since the argument wouldn't necessarily fall apart using the Assumption Negation technique to that reword of (A), it wouldn't be a proper answer for an assumption question.
You raise a great question! The words you mention--some/several/many--all indicate some quantity more than one, but not much beyond that. If we're given a piece of information about "some/several/many" members of a given group, for example, we don't know whether the information pertains to a majority or minority of the group. By contrast, the word "most" provides more specificity, indicating a majority.
Here, the question specifically asks about paragraph 2. In that paragraph, the New Urbanists are clearly making an assumption that could be diagrammed as:
segregated housing prices
socioeconomic segregationIn other words, the New Urbanists are assuming that the fact that there subdivisions are segregated into clusters of same-priced houses implies that the people living in them must be making the same income--that uniformity in housing prices of a subdivision implies socioeconomic uniformity. However, this assumes that there is a close connection between a person's socioeconomic situation and what they spend on their house--some, for example, might be "house poor" while others might have considerable discretionary income.
This assumption is reflected in (A): "Most of those who buy houses in sprawling suburbs do not pay drastically less than they can afford." To test whether it is correct, apply the Assumption Negation technique--negate the answer choice, and see if the argument falls apart; if it does, that is the correct answer. Negating (A), we would have: "Most of those who buy houses in sprawling suburbs do pay drastically less than they can afford." The New Urbanists' argument would no longer hold if this were true--if it were true, then we don't know whether or not segregated housing prices has the effect of socioeconomic segregation. Since the argument would fall apart without this assumption reflected in (A), we know it is the correct answer.
Answer (A) would have a more ambiguous, less specific meaning if it instead read, "Some/several/many of those who buy houses in sprawling suburbs do not pay drastically less than they can afford." Negating this reword, we would have: "Some/several/many of those who buy houses in sprawling suburbs do pay drastically less than they can afford." Since we don't know whether some/several/many refers to a majority or not, this could be true and yet there could still be socioeconomic segregation resulting from house price segregation. That is, some/several/many might only be a small minority, in which case the New Urbanists' argument could still hold. Since the argument wouldn't necessarily fall apart using the Assumption Negation technique to that reword of (A), it wouldn't be a proper answer for an assumption question.