Answer E

@jayw, Great question. The stimulus is a debate between Benson and Willett. Benson supports zoning restrictions to maintain the quality of life in their city. Willett opposes these restrictions, stating that an identical argument was used ten years ago and five years ago. He says that in those instances, the city council was justified in declining to restrict growth. Then, he finishes by saying there's nothing new in the idea of restricting growth. The question asks, "Which one of the following most accurately describes a way in which Willett's reasoning is questionable?" Willett argues that based on previous decisions where the city council was justified in voting not to restrict growth. However, the problem with Willett's argument is that he's stating that there is nothing new in this idea of restricting growth. However, there could have been major changes in the city's situation that have occurred within the last five years that now make restricting growth something that makes sense. You're asking why (E) can't be right. (E) says. "It overlooks the possibility that the city council of ten years ago was poorly qualified to decide on zoning regulations." This answer choice takes aim at the qualifications of the city council from ten years ago. Willett does need to rely on the city council's past judgment of ten and five years ago in his argument since he says that they were justified in not restricting growth ten and five years ago, so if (E) were true, it would definitely weaken the argument. However, we have zero evidence from the stimulus for us to have any reason to have doubt about the city council's qualifications at any point in time, let alone ten years ago, and in order for (E) to be correct, we would have to have been presented with evidence supporting a reason to have doubt about the city council's judgment. Since we have no evidence to support this, we can eliminate (E). (C) says, "it ignores the possibility that the new reasons for restricting growth have arisen in the past five years." (C) describes the flaw we found in our analysis of the stimulus before looking at the answer choices. There very well could presently be new reasons why the city should restrict growth, and these reasons could have arisen within the last five years since the city council's previous vote. This answer choice describes this, so it's our correct choice. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!