City council member: Despite the city's desperate need to exploit any available source of revenue, the mayor has repeatedly blocked council members' attempts to pass legislation imposing real estate development fees.
Conclusion (It Is Clear That)
In blocking bills that would impose fees on real estate development, the mayor is sacrificing the city's interests to personal interests.
Intermediate Conclusion (Thus)
The mayor's family has a strong financial interest in these bills.
Evidence
The mayor's family is heavily involved in real estate development.
Evaluate
This towering paragraph is a tough read. When we do Main Conclusion or Role questions, we need to remind ourselves of their pattern, so that we can make it easier to understand when we're hearing the Main Conclusion.
In 90% of Main Conclusion questions, the Main Conclusion is earlier than (at least some of) the Supporting ideas. It's usually the very First Claim, if that first claim sounds like the author's opinion, or it's some Rebuttal / Pivot moment.
This first claim sounds part opinionated / part factual: The city badly needs money / the mayor has blocked a bill to impose real estate fees.
Does the 2nd sentence try to support the opinion that ?
No, instead it begins with Opinion Indicator language like "It is clear that". Our author thinks the mayor is looking out for himself, not the city. Does she defend that claim?
Yes, but she starts by citing the mayor's defense of his actions. She's saying that even if you can make a statistical argument that the fees the bill would impose would be a net loss for the city, the real reason the mayor is tanking these bills is because his family is involved in real estate and thus would be financially harmed by these new fees.
Goal
Once we've found the conclusion, we just need to pick the answer that best matches it.
Let's look for .