Q15 - Lucien: Public housing advocates claim

[KakaJaja]

Hey, I know why the other four answers are wrong, but I'n not sure why B is right.

Maria pointed out that "Homeless can, therefore, only be caused by people's inability or unwillingness to work to pay for rent" is false because many homeless people do hold regular jobs. However, I think what is denied by Maria is the conclusion of Lucien, not a presupposition. So could you tell me why B is right? Thank you!

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thanks for your question, karenjiang2. First of all, I sympathize with you. I can see why that last bit looks like the conclusion. But Lucien's point is really that more low-income apartments are not needed.

So the argument core of Lucien's argument is:

There are unrented apartments in my building ----> Homelessness is caused by inability or unwillingness to work to pay rent ----> We don't need more low-income housing.

Maria responds that a majority of the homeless do have regular jobs. It's a fine distinction, but Maria isn't really telling Lucien his final conclusion is wrong. In fact, she's not even saying his intermediate conclusion is wrong. Rather, she's telling him that the homeless are working.

The assumption Lucien is making when he goes from the "unrented apartments" to "homelessness is caused by laziness" is that the homeless aren't working. That's why (B) is correct. It addresses an assumption he makes. Note that he never explicitly says the homeless aren't working.

Your approach is totally right though. I wouldn't necessarily have thought that (B) was right at first. But the wrong answers are all clearly wrong. "Presupposition" seems a little out of place but it's the only answer that's even close to right.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Demetri

[agersh144]

I'm confused it seems to me he explictly states that "homlessness can, therefore only be caused by people's inability or unwillingness to work to pay the rent." If it's explicit how can the correct answer choice say he presupposes it?

pre·sup·pose [pree-suh-pohz] Show IPA
verb (used with object), pre·sup·posed, pre·sup·pos·ing.
1.
to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.
2.
(of a thing, condition, or state of affairs) to require or imply as an antecedent condition: An effect presupposes a cause.

[sumukh09]

I'm confused it seems to me he explictly states that "homlessness can, therefore only be caused by people's inability or unwillingness to work to pay the rent." If it's explicit how can the correct answer choice say he presupposes it?

pre·sup·pose [pree-suh-pohz] Show IPA
verb (used with object), pre·sup·posed, pre·sup·pos·ing.
1.
to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance.
2.
(of a thing, condition, or state of affairs) to require or imply as an antecedent condition: An effect presupposes a cause.

The key to this problem is Lucien's strong intermediate conclusion that homelessness can ONLY be caused by homeless people not working. The assumption is that there is only one cause. Why is Lucien assuming out of nowhere that just because there are vacancies means that the homeless are homeless because they do not work? Could there not be another reason? Maybe they work but they simply do not earn enough to pay the rent and feed themselves.

Maria challenges Lucien's assumption that there can only be one cause for homelessness by citing evidence that the homeless do in fact work - so clearly there has to be another reason that they are homeless.

[burqin]

Thanks for your question, karenjiang2. First of all, I sympathize with you. I can see why that last bit looks like the conclusion. But Lucien's point is really that more low-income apartments are not needed.

So the argument core of Lucien's argument is:

There are unrented apartments in my building ----> Homelessness is caused by inability or unwillingness to work to pay rent ----> We don't need more low-income housing.

Maria responds that a majority of the homeless do have regular jobs. It's a fine distinction, but Maria isn't really telling Lucien his final conclusion is wrong. In fact, she's not even saying his intermediate conclusion is wrong. Rather, she's telling him that the homeless are working.

The assumption Lucien is making when he goes from the "unrented apartments" to "homelessness is caused by laziness" is that the homeless aren't working. That's why (B) is correct. It addresses an assumption he makes. Note that he never explicitly says the homeless aren't working.

Your approach is totally right though. I wouldn't necessarily have thought that (B) was right at first. But the wrong answers are all clearly wrong. "Presupposition" seems a little out of place but it's the only answer that's even close to right.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Demetri

In my opinion, the "presuppostion" is not "out of place", not even a bit.

Lucien's argument:

Presupposition: homelessness is due to unwillingness or inability to work
Conclusion: Absurd is the notion that homelessnnes is due to insufficient availability of housing.

Maria's statement: they are working. This statement directly opposes the presupposition.