LSAT9-S1-20:如何区分模糊选项?

jq_jou

Questions 20-21

Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized houses on Cariton Street posed a threat to the safety of our neighborhood. Moreover, no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat. Some people tried to argue that it was unnecessary to demolish what they claimed were basically sound buildings, since the city had established a fund to help people in need of housing buy and rehabilitate such buildings. The overwhelming success of the demolition strategy, however, proves that the majority, who favored demolition, were right and that those who claimed that the problem could and should be solved by rehabilitating the houses were wrong.

20. Which one of the following principles, if established would determine that demolishing the houses was the right decision or instead would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents of demolition should have been adopted?

(A) When what to do about an abandoned neighborhood building is in dispute, the course of action that would result in the most housing for people who need it should be the one adopted unless the building is believed to pose a threat to neighborhood safety.

(B) When there are two proposals for solving a neighborhood problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory, then the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted.

(C) If one of two proposals for renovating vacant neighborhood buildings requires government funding whereas the second does not, the second proposal should be the one adopted unless the necessary government funds have already been secured.

(D) No pain for eliminating a neighborhood problem that requires demolishing basically sound houses should be carried out until all other possible alternatives have been thoroughly investigated.

(E) No proposal for dealing with a threat to a neighborhood’s safety should be adopted merely because a majority of the residents of that neighborhood prefer that proposal to a particular counterproposal

RIGHT ANSWER IS B), i think A) is also right, since if A) is the principle, then the building should be destroyed instead of rehabilated; but B) is also right, if it is the principle, the building should be rehabiliated instead  of destroyed.
Who can tell me why A) is wrong answer? Thx

jq_jou

21. Saunders’ reasoning is flawed because it

(A) relies on fear rather than on argument to persuade the neighborhood association to reject the policy advocated by Saunders’ opponents

(B) fails to establish that there is anyone who could qualify for city funds who would be interested in buying and rehabilitating the houses

(C) mistakenly equates an absence of vocal public dissent with the presence of universal public support

(D) offers no evidence that the policy advocated by Saunders’ opponents would not have succeeded if it had been given the chance

(E) does not specify the precise nature of the threat to neighborhood safety supposedly posed by the vandalized houses

right answer is d), why c) is wrong? the argument said 'no one now disputes that getting the houses torn down eliminated that threat'-----treat this as 'everyone agrees with it' , just what c) says.
Anyone can tell me why C) is wrong? Thx!

jq_jou

anyone can help? Thx

jq_jou

有没有大虾愿意指教? 谢谢先!

saic_zzh

第一题里面说道the course of action that would result in the most housing for people who need it，就是说大家最需要的就是最后应该采纳的。如果这是一条标准的话，那么原文的拆房或是维修将无法作出选择，可以理解为很多人既同意拆房也同意维修啊，呵呵，100个人里面有90个同意拆房，还有90个同意维修，那么应该选择哪个呢
但是B 这个选项也挺怪，因为按照B的逻辑，推出来的应该是维修。因为即便是维修好以后呢也还是可以拆的，但是一旦被拆掉就不能被维修了，所以按照B中的选择标准 the approach that does not foreclose the other possibility should be the one adopted就可以作出选择了。好在问题是只要作出选择并不用对原文support or weaken

第二题，
初看C是有问题，但我认为这题更重要的逻辑错误是评判标准的缺失，就算是赞成的人多也无法说明一个做法一定是对的啊。所以其中的一个小逻辑（不否定既赞成）就应该被放在相对次要的位子。倒是D很清楚，因为这个S无法证明修房是错的啊，虽然拆房可能是对的，但也不能就此说明修房就不好了。
我们总不能说因为汤面好吃，所以冷面就不好吃了吧。