Saunders: Everyone at last week’s

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Outcome Match34% picked this

   When what to do about an abandoned neighborhood building is in dispute, the course of action that would result in the most housing for

   This principle says: pick the option that produces the most housing for needy people, unless the building is believed to pose a safety threat. Everyone in the stimulus agreed the houses posed a safety threat — so the safety exception fires, and the principle is silent on what to do once the exception applies. It does not lock in either side. To determine the right call, the principle would have to dictate an outcome here, and it does not.

   34%
2. B

   Correct47% picked this

   When there are two proposals for solving a neighborhood problem, and only one of them would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach

   Why this is right

   This principle nails the structural asymmetry between the two options. Demolition forecloses rehab — once the house is rubble, you cannot rehabilitate it. Rehab does not foreclose demolition — if rehab fails to solve the safety problem, you can still demolish later. So one option (demolition) "would preclude the possibility of trying the other approach if the first proves unsatisfactory" and the other (rehab) does not. The principle says: pick the option that does not foreclose the other. Applied here, that picks rehab — meaning the opponents (rehab proponents) should have been adopted. The principle definitively determines an outcome — that is exactly what the stem asks for.

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

   47%
3. C

   Bad Outcome Match7% picked this

   If one of two proposals for renovating vacant neighborhood buildings requires government funding whereas the second does not, the second proposal should be the

   This principle says: when one proposal needs government funding and the other does not, pick the non-funded one unless the funding has already been secured. The stimulus says the city had "established a fund" for buying and rehabilitating such buildings — which sounds like funding is in place — so the exception fires. Once the exception fires, the principle is silent. It does not determine which side was right.

   7%
4. D

   Bad Outcome Match6% picked this

   No plan for eliminating a neighborhood problem that requires demolishing basically sound houses should be carried out until all other possible

   This principle says no plan to demolish basically sound houses should be carried out until all other alternatives have been thoroughly investigated. The stimulus does not tell us whether all alternatives were thoroughly investigated, and the principle ends with a delay condition rather than a definitive call. It might bar demolition under certain conditions, but it does not affirmatively pick rehab as the right choice or affirm demolition as right. It does not determine the outcome the stem requires.

   6%
5. E

   Bad Outcome Match5% picked this

   No proposal for dealing with a threat to a neighborhood’s safety should be adopted merely because a majority of the residents of that neighborhood

   This principle says no proposal should be adopted merely because a majority prefer it. That challenges Saunders's reasoning style (citing majority support), but it does not pick which side was right. Even if a proposal cannot be adopted by majority alone, that says nothing about whether demolition or rehab was substantively the better call. The principle limits a method of decision-making but does not determine the substantive outcome.

   5%