Elite097 wrote:
Why not choice C? if they reduce support for other cities, they will have more money saved as a consequence which they can deploy to use here. So why is this not a weakener? I know the passage and the correct choice but I do not why C is not working out. Assumption also kind of hinges on the fact that funding is not enough for new people. But by reducing support for other services, clearly they can use those resources here .
(C) claims that approving the proposal would mean that
support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year. To me that seems to strengthen the claim that the proposal is foolish, not weaken it. I'm assuming, of course, that the other city services aren't currently overfunded. If they are, then I suppose (C) neither strengthens nor weakens the conclusion.
I think the error in your thinking,
Elite097, is that you're evaluating whether
the consequence of approving the proposal (support for other city services will have to be reduced during the next fiscal year)
could cause the proposal to be not foolish, but that's circular logic. Let's abstract this reasoning:
X is a foolish proposal because it would lead to problem Y.
Answer choice (C) says: If X is approved,
negative impact Z will occur.
If Z occurs, we can avoid problem Y (
are you sure?)... Therefore, X isn't foolish after all.