Op-Ed letter: (Town councils are usually unable to make the right

I believe that the answer to this one is .

As with any argument the first thing you need to do is seperate the evidence and the conclusion. The conlusion to the argument is that not giving the councilors anonymity make it impossible for them to vote on provisions that the community needs (the last half sentence). The other sentences are peices of evidence the author provides to stregthen his conclusion.

A) The second bolded sentence is not the conclusion, so this is not the answer.

B) The first bolded sentence doesn't tell us that the citizen knowledge of the votes causes the council to be unable to make the right decisions. It merely tells us that these two phenomenon happen at the same time. They could cause each other or the could simply be coincidental. From the first bolded sentence we can't tell. Thus, this is not the correct answer.

C) The first bolded sentence is a generalization the author makes, and the second bolded sentence is a peice of evidence offered against the authors conclusion. Again the conclusion is that a lack of anonymity causes the coucnilors to not be able to vote on legislation that is good for the citizens. The second sentence offers evidence against this position because it says that anonymity will also allow them to vote on things that are bad for the community.

C is right.

D) The first sentence is provided as evidence of the conclusion, but the second sentence is not a generalization that the author is saying that will hold true in this instance. The author is indicating it may exist, but not that it will certainly exist. This is wrong.

E) As stated in A) sentence one does not indicate cause and effect. This is wrong.