The city planner's conclusion is stated in the last sentence: "The city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center; otherwise, the revitalization project will surely fail." How does the city planner arrive at this conclusion?

• In the first sentence, the city planner essentially asks, "If we only expand residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums, will our city center be adequately revitalized?" The answer, according the city planner, is, "No. Offering expanded residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums is not enough to revitalize the city center."
• So if condominium sales will most likely be insufficient on their own, what else is needed? According to the author, the condominium sales will only sufficiently revitalize the city center if incentives for investment in local small business are also offered. In other words, high-priced condos are not enough; in order revitalize the city center, we need both high-priced condos AND incentives for investment in local small business.
• Restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries are examples of local small businesses. Thus, the author implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses.
• If the city council is NOT aggressive in attracting small businesses to the city center, the city center will not be successfully revitalized. The author implies that the revitalization project will only be successful if high-priced condos are offered AND if small businesses are attracted to the city center.

Now that we understand the author's reasoning, let's look for an answer choice that, if true, most weakens that reasoning:

(A) According to the passage, we need both high-priced condos AND small businesses in order to successfully revitalize the city center. The city planner implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses. But what if those small businesses would come to the city center on their own, without any incentives or efforts on the part of the city council? Choice (A) is evidence that the small businesses might come to the city center on their own to take advantage of the new market. If the same thing were to happen in the city described in the passage, there would be no need for the city council to aggressively attract small businesses or to offer incentives for investment in local small business. Thus, choice (A) is evidence that the city planner's logic is not sound, so let's keep it.

(B) The city planner does not imply that proximity to service industries is the most important factor that buyers consider when choosing a residence. The author simply suggests that the revitalization project will fail if the city council does not aggressively attract small businesses to the city center, without explaining why those small businesses are necessary. Thus, choice (B) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.

(C) We don't know why "the city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center" was largely unsuccessful. Perhaps that attempt was a failure because the city council was not aggressive or did not offer incentives for investment in those restaurants. Or perhaps the council attempted to attract those restaurants before making plans to expand residential space, in which case investors may have seen no reason to invest in restaurants located in that part of the city. Choice (C) does not weaken the author's argument and can be eliminated.

(D) Choice (D) describes a potential financial benefit that would result from the expansion of residential space in the form of high-priced (or "luxury") condos. The author does not deny that luxury condos would have other benefits (tax revenue, job creation, etc). Instead, the author implies that the benefits will not be sufficient to revitalize the city center unless small businesses are also attracted. Choice (D) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.

(E) The city planner does not deny that significant investment might be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area. Regardless, the city planner believes that attracting small business is necessary if the city is to revitalize the center. Choice (E) strengthens the city planner's argument because it is evidence that incentives must be offered in order to attract the significant investment that would be needed. Eliminate (E).

Choice (A) is the best answer.
_________________

Even If A appears to weaken the conclusion, it need not necessarily weaken.If something is true in other cities, then it does not necessarily mean that something will hold valid in similar case in some different city.
Option D seems to provide a reason to weaken the conclusion that even without the local business in place the sales of condominiums may be efficient.

I am confused between a and e.
Isn't the question about weakening the reasoning provided?
The last line kind of feels like an action plan. A plan to make the premise work out maybe? Its super confusing. If the reasoning is building ......etc then the anwser should be E i think.
Otherwise A.obviously.

Posted from my mobile device

Oh! thank you for clearing it out! Appreciate it!

Very good question .
B seems like a trap answer .
A is more direct and thus is the answer

Very tricky question. Amazing explanation GMATNinja. We need such questions to fine tune our practice.

Hi GMATNinja,
Can you suggest if there are two opinions in an argument by an author
(for eg in this case, the first and last sentence) how do we arrive at the
main conclusion?
WR,
Arpit
_________________

Hi GMATNinja

Let me know of my below understanding is correct:

Opinion: Only belief by author, may or may not be supported by facts/ other opinions

Main Conclusion: Need to be backed by reasoning, which could be a premise (fact) or an
intermediate opinion.

WR,
Arpit.
_________________

s8kadian, see if this post helps!
_________________

Reasoning of the argument: City planner indicates that if there’s no investment to attract local small businesses. So the CP is claiming that the council must draw new service industries to the center if the council wants their revitalization project to be successful.

Weaken: No investment still successfully attracts small businesses & services

(A) When several nearby cities recently attempted to revitalize their city centers by expanding luxury residential space, small businesses rushed to take advantage of the new market, significantly contributing to the success the revitalization projects.

Well, this answer choice is not my favorite. I admit I dumped it at the first sight….but I came back to it after finishing reading other choices. Then I found it’s actually better than the other four

(B) In a statewide survey of buyers and potential buyers of luxury condominiums, the majority of respondents indicated that they do not consider proximity to service industries to be the most important factor when choosing a residence.

We can conclude that the sales of the condos actually suffers due to other reason.

(C) The city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center was largely unsuccessful.
There are many reasons that this answer choice is wrong 1) The unsuccessful attempt of new restaurants doesn’t necessarily implicate that the attraction of other services will also be unsuccessful. 2) What get you here today won’t get you there tomorrow.

(D) An increase in luxury condos would substantially increase property tax revenue in the city center.

Property tax? Not my concern

(E) Before small businesses could open near the proposed luxury condominiums, significant investment would be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area

This does nothing to the argument.