Politician: Homelessness is a serious social problem, but further gove

It seems like you think only you seem to have the logical explanations! Now thats a laugh! How I wish the GMAT would reward us for what we think are the correct answers rather than for 'just' the OAs!!!

Logical explanation? Here you go 'pal':
A says: It suggests an alternative prospective to the one adopted in the argument.

The conclusion is: The frequent claim that people are homeless because of a lack of available housing is wrong.
Is A offering an alternate prospective to this? If it were, then A would be saying: Homelessness is mainly caused by a lack of available housing.
So A is wrong as it does NOT offer an alternate (potential) option (prospective) to what is stated in the argument. The supply - demand theory is really fancy but I'll pass on that, thank you. LOL!

C says:It is compatible either with accepting the conclusion or with denying it.

Accept the conclusion: The frequent claim that people are homeless because of a lack of available housing is wrong.
Deny the conclusion: The frequent claim that people are homeless because of a lack of available housing is NOT wrong

Is the statement 'homelessness is a serious social problem' compatible with both of the above? YUP

Btw swagatalaksmi, I think you confused prospective with perspective. Please refer here for the difference:
https://dictionary.reference.com/

Kripal - Well put. Your repartee to Ms SwagatLakshmi's remarks notwithstanding, I would be honest and say I didn't quite understand your argument. The OA is C which you got correct, but I don't quite get it.

In fact to that extent, even though I had chosen a different answer (i had chosen D) I kinda agree with SwagatLakshmi's point about A being a very formidable choice.

That's because I do realize that there are two perspectives - one purely driven by Supply chain considerations, whereby even if people have money they don't have enough housing available versus a socially regressive situation wherein people are simply not able to afford housing because of lack of income.

The author begins by saying "Homelessness is a serious social problem" indicating it could be due to lack of jobs and low-earning potential of the population as a whole.

Then the argument changes course and asserts that there are enough housing units available. It does seem like the argument switches courses from focusing on one aspect of the problem to another - something that's alluded to in choice A.

Even your example on how C is compatible with accepting the conclusion or denying it didn't make sense to it. But I am not at all good at CR - and that may be the reason I may simply be missing the point. I generally consider myself to have a decent intelligence so when I don't get something it really hurts me.

Swagatlakshmi - there's a difference between knowing something well and putting it across so that the those listening to you can focus on what it is you are saying rather than HOW you are saying it.

Thanks

Let us summarize the argument:
Homelessness is a serious social problem -Politician makes a claim-, but further government spending to provide low-income housing is not the cure for homelessness-Politician is discussing the solution for the problem he just described. He states that of the many solutions available, extra housing is not the solution. The most cursory glance at the real-estate section of any major newspaper is enough to show that there is no lack of housing units available to rent. So the frequent claim that people are homeless because of a lack of available housing is wrong.The two statements provide the reason why politicin believes that extra housing is not the solution

In short the bolded part plays a role of stating the problem whose one of the solution is discussed in the passage. In addition the politician explains why he believes that this solution is incorrect

(A) It suggests an alternative prospective to the one adopted in the argument.
- Prospective adopted in the argument - extra housing is not the solution. The bolded face discusses the problem and definitely not an alternative prospective
- wrong

(B) It sets out a problem the argument is designed to resolve.
- The bolded part does set out a problem.
- However, the argument does not resovle the problem. The argument simply states that solution discussed is inappropriate
- Wrong

(C) It is compatible either with accepting the conclusion or with denying it.
- Bolded part states a problem.
- Conclusion is extra housing is not a solution.
- Proving the conclusion wrong or right won't affect the existence of the problem. The problem still stands.
- Correct

(D) It summarizes a position the argument as a whole is directed toward discrediting.
- The argument is focused on discrediting that extra housing is not the appropriate solution.
- The bolded part is describing the problem
- Wrong

(E) It is required in order to establish the conclusion.
- The bolded part is a problem. It plays a role of background information. The premise after the reasons given for the believe that the suggested solution is incorrect. The conclusion is the solution is inappropriate.
- Wrong

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.