RC Inference

[JbhB682]

Source : Manhattan Prep

In the 1960s, Northwestern University sociologist John McKnight coined the term redlining, the practice of denying or severely limiting service to customers in particular geographic areas, often determined by the racial composition of the neighborhood. The term came from the practice of banks outlining certain areas in red on a map; within the red outline, banks refused to invest. With no access to mortgages, residents within the red line suffered low property values and landlord abandonment; buildings abandoned by landlords were then more likely to become centers of drug dealing and other crime, thus further lowering property values.

Redlining in mortgage lending was made illegal by the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited such discrimination based on race, religion, gender, familial status, disability, or ethnic origin, and by community reinvestment legislation in the 1970s. However, redlining has sometimes continued in less explicit ways, and can also take place in the context of constrained access to health care, jobs, insurance, and more. Even today, some credit card companies send different offers to homes in different neighborhoods, and some auto insurance companies 15 offer different rates based on zip code.

Redlining can lead to reverse redlining, which occurs when predatory businesses specifically target minority or low income consumers for the purpose of charging them more than would typically be charged for a particular service. When mainstream retailers refuse to serve a certain area, people in that area can fall prey to opportunistic smaller retailers who sell inferior goods at higher prices

3. Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

i) Redlining ceased with the passing of the Fair Housing Act in 1968.
ii)Providing services based on zip code may be a form of redlining.
iii)Access to mortgages is related to higher property values
a) i only
b) ii only
c) iii only
d) i & ii only
e) ii and iii Only

OA is E

[JbhB682]

I thought iii) was wrong because of what i have learnt from critical reasoning

Just because per the passage , No Mortgages--> Low property values

Does not necessarily mean

Access to mortgages is related to higher property values

Its quite possible that access to mortgages, property values can either remain same or rise.

So how can you be 100 % sure what iii) is saying is true which is Access to mortgages is related to higher property values

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Are you sure that this is a Manhattan Prep question? I can't find it in our database.

I agree with your analysis that if A causes B, then we can't be sure that not-A causes not-B. For example, if rainy weather causes my shoes to get wet, then I can't be sure that if we have dry weather then my shoes will be dry, as there may be other causes (I could step in a river, for example).

However, the wording of this question is a little more tricky: it doesn't claim that access to mortgages definitely causes higher property prices. The words 'related to' indicate something like 'probably' or 'much of the time'. On that interpretation, the inference is okay.

Think again about the example about my shoes. It would be reasonable to infer that 'dry weather is related to my shoes being dry'.

[JbhB682]

Can I thus make this the take-away I can use for CR and RC inferences based on this or is this too dangerous a takeaway ?

If x --> y

On inference questions

Not x --> not Y is ALWAYS wrong

But

Not X
(could be related / slight probability /high probability / less then 50 % chance / more than 50% chance) to Not Y is accurate from an inference perspective

Let me know your thoughts

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

That sounds risky to me. I think it depends on the context.

Here's an example: Whenever it rains, my shoes get wet. From this I can't infer Whenever it doesn't rain, my shoes stay dry. since there are other ways that my shoes could get wet. However, you could infer Whenever it doesn't rain, my shoes might be dry. but you'd need some more context to put a percentage / chance on the situation.