Residents of a coastal community

Answer choices

1. A

   Irrelevant: preserve buildings7% picked this

   Every possible effort should be made to preserve historic buildings that are well

   There's no building here that residents are trying to preserve. They are trying to preserve an absence of building.

   7%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   Communities that seek to preserve undeveloped areas of landscape or historic neighborhoods should purchase those properties

   This principle would help us to conclude that the concerned residents should rally together money and buy this land from this family. That's not a match for either conclusion. We're trying to justify that "the family shouldn't build the house" or that "doing so would damage our local artistic / historic heritage".

   2%
3. C

   Unrelated to Goal3% picked this

   Artists who choose to represent actual landscapes in their paintings have the right to demand that the owners of the land represented

   This is a principle about what rights artists have. The artist in this argument is deceased. We're looking for a principle that would address what rights the local residents have to block construction of a house on private land.

   3%
4. D

   Correct77% picked this

   The right to build on one's own property is constrained by the artistic and historical interests of

   Why this is right

   This helps us build the case that family, even though they are well within their rights to build the house, should still be factoring in the artistic / historical interests of the community. It's a weak strengthener, because it really just affirms a necessary assumption. But it's the strongest thing offered. A minority of Strengthen + Principle questions have this feel of Weighing Tradeoffs. This argument is all about stopping the construction of the house, because the community's artistic and historic heritage would be damaged. But the argument supplied some counterpoints -- this house would be on the family's land and would not violate any town codes. So if we were objecting, "The family should go forward with the construction. After all, it's perfectly within their legal rights. Don't worry about those whiny residents", this principle would resist that line of thinking. It's saying, "No, no. You actually have to weigh these tradeoffs. Your right to build on your own property is constrained by (affected by) the local artistic / historical interests."

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   77%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match10% picked this

   In historic communities, the building and zoning regulations should prohibit construction that obstructs access

   Nothing in the argument was concluding that building and zoning regulations should be changed, so we have no interest in a principle dictating what building and zoning regulations should / shouldn't do. The concept of preventing there from being "obstructed access to a historic site" is also out of scope. No one currently has access to this historic site. It is the family's land. It's only a question of whether the land will look (from afar) the way it does in an iconic local painting or whether it will look different once they build a large house.

   10%