lsat test9/s1/q20-21

mzyzhu

Q20, 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.

Why B is right, and why A is not?

Q21, 21. Saunders’ reasoning is flawed because it

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

why the answer is D?

Saunders’s argument is because more people support the demolishing strategy the strategy itself approves to be correct. Does D have anything related to this line of reasoning?