Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agr

Thanks Andre, that's pretty good explanation from you, I think I understand now why A is not correct, just like you said, it provide us with option to choose B or not B but not to choose A.

However am I right in saying that (B) only suggest us to choose plan B?

What I think here is as below,
Option B says - when we have two options pick the one, that does not preclude the other option, first and if it is found unsatisfactory then pick the other option (that precludes the possibility of the other)
While the stem says that demolishing the houses(the option that precludes the possibility of other) is the first choice (because housing is a threat to the neighbourhood), This is opposite to what is mentioned in option B.

On the other hand, as per the stem, we picked one option(demolishing) over other (housing) cause the building was a threat to the neighbourhood.
Option A says - when there are two options, pick the one(housing) over other(demolishing) until and unless the building is a threat to the neighbourhood. This is what we did.

So I chose A over B with this thinking. Can someone please explain where I went wrong?

The key to solve this question is to deeply analize the question stem. Basically, you need a principle that would determine that demolishing was the right decision or that would determine that the proposal advocated by the opponents should have been the right one.

(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.

This answer choice basically states that the demolishing option was the only correct choice, so the evaluation of the proposal by the opponets is irrelevant. - Incorrect.

(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.

This one states that you should first try the option that does not foreclose the other possibility, so it is basically saying: if you do not solve it with the first method and this one is an incorrect approach, you can try to solve the problem with the second method. - Correct

(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.

Both options would have need government funding, so this one does not affect the argument. Incorrect

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

This one is close, but the issue is that it only mentions that this plan should not be carried out until all other possible alternatives have been throughly investigated. Does this one mention anything about the opponents plan? Not really - Incorrect

(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.

This one just talks about a consideration for choosing the demolition option. - Incorrect

Saunders: Everyone at last week’s neighborhood association meeting agreed that the row of abandoned and vandalized houses on Carlton 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.

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. - WRONG. It is already established that people in the neighbourhood believe that those houses are dangerous and pose safety issues. This choice takes a turn and focuses on different things.

(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. - CORRECT. Not sure how this is right but POE lets one to reach this. One approach lets the possibility of other and another doesn't. So, the one that doesn't seems to be the right approach based on the reasoning this choice makes.

(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. - WORNG. It's a conditional and depending on condition the approaches are either wrong or right.

(D) No plan for eliminating a neighborhood problem that requires demolishing basically sound houses should be carried out until all other possible alternatives have been thoroughly investigated. - WRONG. Looks good but it makes a claim not gives reasons that lets us know which approach is right and which one is wrong.

(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. - WRONG. Okay, may be right way of doing things but it does not help in identifying which approach is right and which one is wrong.

Answer B.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.