Lucien: Public-housing advocates claim that the many homeless people

Question

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 people’s inability or unwillingness to work to pay the rent.

Maria: On the contrary, all recent studies show that a significant percentage of this city’s homeless people hold regular jobs. These are people who lack neither will nor ability.

Maria responds to Lucien’s argument by

(A) challenging the accuracy of the personal experiences he offers in support of his position
(B) showing that a presupposition of his argument is false
(C) presenting evidence that calls into question his motives for adopting the view he holds
(D) demonstrating that the evidence he offers supports a conclusion other than the conclusion he draws from it
(E) offering an alternative explanation for the facts he cites as evidence supporting his conclusion

Someone pls explain why is c incorrect? thank you

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) No. Maria does not respond to Lucien’s personal experiences.

(B) Yes.  Lucien states “ Homelessness can, therefore, only be caused by people’s inability or unwillingness to work to pay the rent. ” Maria shows that this statement is false by pointing out “ that a significant percentage of this city’s homeless people hold regular jobs ” and that “ These are people who lack neither will nor ability. ”

(C) No. Maria never directs her argument toward Lucien.

(D) No. Maria does not respond to the evidence presented by Lucien.

(E) No. This is the second-best answer. Maria indirectly provides another explanation for Lucien' observations, but does so by directly attacking one of his premises.

KanakGarg · Answer

A and B seems quite close, Can you please help in eliminating A.

akshayk · Answer

L : L disagrees with the PA's claim that the many homeless people in the city shows there is insufficient low income housing. His reasoning is that His building, as well as that of his friends, has many empty flats.
L's Conclusion : Homelessness is not a housing problem 
L's Conclusion - homelessness is caused by people's inability or unwillingness to work and pay rent.

M : Significant % hold regular job so the issue is not ability or will.

A - Maria is not attacking L's personal experience, but his assumption behind his conclusion. OUT.
B - Maria is attacking L's assumption that homeless is caused only because of people's inability or unwillingness to work and pay rent.
C - No motives are questioned. OUT.
D - She isn't demonstrating that his evidence supports another conclusion, but is providing evidence that is questioning his assumption.
E - Nope. OUT.

B is the answer.

akshayk · Answer

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 people’s inability  or unwillingness to work to pay the rent.

Maria: On the contrary, all recent studies show that a  significant percentage of this city’s homeless people hold regular jobs. These are people who lack neither will nor ability.
 
L's experience is that a lot of the apartments across the city are empty.
L's conclusion is that homelessness is caused by people's inability, or unwillingness to work and pay rent.

M is citing evidence to state, to the contrary, that the homeless in fact hold regular jobs so homelessness is not caused by their unwillingness, or their ability to work and pay rent.
'A' says Maria is challenging the accuracy of his personal experience, but Maria isn't doing that at all. 
 
Hope this helps.

chesstitans · Answer

"lack neither" - Double negative is so annoying. It took me a while to realize the counter-argument of Maria.
(A) challenging the accuracy of the  personal experiences  he offers in support of his position -> wrong
(B) showing that a presupposition of his argument is false
(C) presenting evidence that calls into question  his motives  for adopting the view he holds
(D)  demonstrating that the evidence he offers supports a conclusion  other than the conclusion he draws from it
(E) offering an  alternative explanation for the facts  he cites  as evidence supporting his conclusion

lostin · Answer

Summary of stem - 
Lucien - Based on his observation claims homelessness is result of inability and unwillingness.
Maria - Refers to some studies claiming otherwise

Run down to each option -
(A) challenging the accuracy of the personal experiences he offers in support of his position
 Maria didn't talk on the same line as Lucien so she is not challenging his personal experience here
(B) showing that a presupposition of his argument is false
 Maria claims that his assumption is wrong about homelessness. so Correct answer.
(C) presenting evidence that calls into question his motives for adopting the view he holds
 No mention of motives.
(D) demonstrating that the evidence he offers supports a conclusion other than the conclusion he draws from it
 No, she didn't talk about empty apartments so out.
(E) offering an alternative explanation for the facts he cites as evidence supporting his conclusion
 Again no mention of house occupancy so eliminate.

giuliab3 · Answer

Hello

May someone explain how you approach these types of questions? Do you actually deconstruct the argument by writing down the Premises and structure until conclusion? I try not to take notes to avoid wasting time but I get quite a few wrong, is this a good approach?

unraveled · Answer

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 people’s inability or unwillingness to work to pay the rent.

Maria: On the contrary, all recent studies show that a significant percentage of this city’s homeless people hold regular jobs. These are people who lack neither will nor ability.

Maria responds to Lucien’s argument by

(A) challenging the  accuracy of the personal experiences  he offers in support of his position - WRONG. Both challenging and accuracy are not what we are concerned off. 
(B) showing that a  presupposition of his argument is false  - CORRECT. Conclusion is attacked thus the presupposition is attacked. 
(C) presenting evidence that  calls into question his motives  for adopting the view he holds - WRONG. Not question but presenting a different fact that's opposite to basis on which conclusion was offered.
(D) demonstrating that the evidence he offers supports a conclusion  other than the conclusion he draws  from it - WRONG. The best after right choice. - WRONG. Conclusion!! what conclusion. We are not sure which conclusion it could be. But nowhere Maria suggests that a different conclusion can be reached out.
(E) offering an  alternative explanation  for the facts he cites as evidence supporting his conclusion - WRONG. Not alternative but opposite evidence.

Answer B.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Lucien: Public-housing advocates claim that the many homeless people

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Lucien: Public-housing advocates claim that the many homeless people

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards