#14 - People’s antagonism to development in their

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[rachelbernard]

I understand why C is correct (and I got it right), but can someone explain why E is wrong? It was definitely tempted by it when answering this question.

[KoenXin]

I understand why C is correct (and I got it right), but can someone explain why E is wrong? It was definitely tempted by it when answering this question.

I'm reviewing this section and similarly chose C with only E not being crossed out my first go-through.

The stimulus is saying that People's opposition to new developments in their neighborhood can be harmful, with the support that neighbors of nightclubs tend to dislike them and gives the strong conditional that if a neighborhood is allowed to block said nightclub developments, then the city will never get them in the future. There's a pretty large gap in my view here, that being his conclusion is really strong based off his support. What would lead us to believe that not developing a nightclub is harmful? Wouldn't you not want a strip club next door with possibly loud music at late hours? The author of the stimulus doesn't really establish why their opposition would be harmful. So going into the answer choices I am immediately looking for something to tell me that not building these nightclubs is going to be bad, which we both saw was stated almost word for word with answer choice C.

For answer choice E, we can use the handy negation tool if we're unsure between two answers. If E was not true: "New nightclubs NEVER produce some benefits for the neighborhoods in which they are open". But even if this was true, the argument wasn't about the benefits of nightclubs to neighborhoods, but that not building said nightclub can be harmful which C more adequately addresses. Even if it didn't give benefits, there is still the possibility of it not being harmful in that scenario.

Using that same tool on C: "It is a good thing for a city if it never gets new nightclubs" This is quite the opposite of what the author intends with his argument and would destroy his conclusion if true. Necessary Assumption questions are asking us to find a condition that must be true, if the conclusion is true. If it doesn't have to be true, then we can eliminate it.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

KoenXin is on the right track here, Rachel.

I'm a big fan of using the assumption negation technique when stuck between two answer choices in an assumption question. It's such a great way to see how an answer choice impacts the argument. With the assumption negation technique we negate the answer choice, and see if it weakens the argument in its negated form. If it does, it's our winner! If it helps the argument or has no effect, it's a loser answer. The technique works because it helps us imagine what it would be like if the answer choice was not true. Do we really need the answer choice for the conclusion to work? If the conclusion is weaker without the answer choice, it's an assumption.

With all that said, let's look at answer choices (C) and (E). Answer choice (C) we'd weaken by saying "it's not a bad thing if the city doesn't get any new nightclubs." The negation isn't going as far as to say it would be a good thing, but just "not a bad thing." Well, if it's not bad to not get new nightclubs, where's the harm to the city? The negated form of answer choice (C) hurts the argument, meaning the argument needs this answer choice to work. It's our correct assumption.

When we negate it, answer choice (E) would say that new nightclubs produce no benefits for the neighborhood. This doesn't really impact the argument too much, but it certainly doesn't hurt it. If anything, it helps the argument in the negated form by saying that there's no real upside to having the nightclubs. It still doesn't show any harm as we'd expect from the conclusion.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[nosracgus]

Hi - I ruled out E on this question because it was discussing neighborhoods, whereas (in my view) the stimulus/conclusion was more-so referring to harm to the city as a whole. Is this a valid way to rule out E?

Thanks!
C

[Jeremy Press]

Hi C,

I wouldn't eliminate answer choice E on that basis, because harm (or benefit) to the neighborhood would be naturally construed as harm (or benefit) to the city as well. Instead, answer choice E is wrong because of how strongly it's worded. Our author is concerned that if the city never gets new nightclubs, that could be harmful to the city. But that doesn't mean that every single new nightclub produces a benefit to the city. Rather, it assumes that in the aggregate (when you look at all the new nightclubs that might open in the city) there will be some benefit to the city in the aggregate. Would it be a problem for the author's argument if, say, a single nightclub here or there turned out not to be beneficial? No, not at all. But it would be a problem if you looked at all the nightclubs opening up in a city and found that, collectively, none of them produced a benefit. So, the basic problem (often a problem with assumption questions!) is that answer choice E is simply a bit too strong to be necessary to the author's conclusion.

I hope this helps!

[frk215]

Would you say it's okay to cross out e because of the use of the term "invariably"? At first glance e seemed great, but that language seemed so strong and didn't pass the assumption test as you folks describe above. I didn't run the full assumption test on e though, i just walked away when i saw "invariably". Thoughts?

[Adam Tyson]

Definitely, frk215! The author doesn't have to assume that it happens "invariably" - that's far too strong. But also, the author doesn't need to assume that it benefits that neighborhood. New nightclubs might be terrible for the neighborhood they are in, but beneficial to the city overall. That's another reason to reject that answer.

[nicizle]

Can someone explain why answer choice B is incorrect?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi nicizle!

Since this is an assumption question, a good way to address an incorrect answer choice is to apply the Assumption Negation technique. If the negated answer choice makes the argument fall apart/weakens it when plugged in, that confirms that it's the correct answer choice. If, by contrast, it does nothing or even helps the argument, then it's incorrect.

In this stimulus, the conclusion is the first sentence: "People’s antagonism to development in their neighborhoods can be harmful to a city." Negating answer choice (B) would produce the following: "All neighborhoods in a city are [not] equally opposed to getting new nightclubs." Why would this matter as to whether or not new nightclubs are harmful to a city? In the end, the negation of (B) doesn't seem to do anything to the argument, which is why it can be eliminated. In addition, harm is a new element found in the conclusion but not in the premises, and (B) doesn't address it. We need something that bridges that gap, as answer choice (C) does (albeit by referring to badness rather than harm explicitly).