Lucien: Public-housing advocates claim that the many homeless people in this city are proof that there is insufficient housing available to them and therefore that more low-income apartments are needed. But that conclusion is absurd. Many apartments in my own building remain unrented and my professional colleagues report similar vacancies where they live. Since apartments clearly are available, homelessness is not a housing problem. Homelessness can, therefore, only be caused by peoples inability or unwillingness to work to pay the rent.
Maria: On the contrary, all recent studies show that a significant percentage of this citys homeless people hold regular jobs. These are people who lack neither will nor ability.
1. Luciens argument against the public-housing advocates position is most vulnerable to which one of the following criticisms?
I would chose C
. Here's my breakdown:
(A) It offers no justification for dismissing as absurd the housing advocates claim that there are many homeless people in the city.
The arguement is more towards housing for homeless people, not the number of homeless people.
(B) It treats information acquired through informal conversations as though it provided evidence as strong as information acquired on the basis of controlled scientific studies.
Scientfic studies aren't completely relevant to this discussion.
(C) It responds to a claim in which available is used in the sense of affordable by using available in the sense of not occupied.
This seems to relate to the discussion of affordable housing vs. available housing in the discussion of homeless people.
(D) It overlooks the possibility that not all apartment buildings have vacant apartments for rent.
This doesn't discuss homeless people & affordable housing.
(E) It fails to address the issue, raised by the public-housing advocates argent, of who would pay for the construction of more low-income housing.
The discussion of new contruction isn't relevant to this topic.
Now on to part 2:
I would chose C
2. Maria responds to Luciens argument by
(A) challenging the accuracy of the personal experiences he offers in support of his position
No mention of personal experieces, just conversations he has had with co-workers.
(B) showing that a presupposition of his argument is false
There wasn't any showing of a false presupposition
(C) presenting evidence that calls into question his motives for adopting the view he holds
I think this is correct because it questions his ideaology that all homeless people are unwilling or inable to work with evidence from recent studies.
(D) demonstrating that the evidence he offers supports a conclusion other than the conclusion he draws from it
She doesn't question his evidence.
(E) offering an alternative explanation for the facts he cites as evidence supporting his conclusion
She didn't offer an alternative explantion to any facts that he did not cite.