- Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:40 am
#89589
Queens,
The conclusion of the argument is "But they are wrong." We need to start there. In context, we can see that means that the residents are wrong; so a translation of that conclusion is "Residents are wrong to think that the city has no right to require homeowners to connect to city water services." Simplifying, "The city has the right to require homeowners to connect to city water services." Well, the premises in the final sentence establish that the homeowners will be charged a fair market price and that the plan will benefit all city residents. That's all well and good, but nothing in those premises establishes that the city has the right to do that. If forcing you to do something, charging you for it (even if a fair price!), would benefit everyone where you live, would I have the right to do that? I hope you'd agree that more is required to show that I have the right to force you to do something, even something possibly beneficial.
We should evaluate answers based on whether they show that the city has a right to do the action in question. Given that the mayor's justification involved paying a fair price and benefiting the entire city, an answer that says "If the city does something, charging you a fair price, that benefits the whole city, it has a right to do that," that would seem like an excellent answer. We can see that answer choice (A) does exactly that.
Robert Carroll