PrepTest 154

Incorrect. Even if this were untrue, the conclusion could still be valid. Right now, the stimulus suggests that the decision whether or not to approve is at least sometimes not made on the city level. So, it's possible for anti-development neighbors locally to affect decision-making.

Incorrect. This doesn't need to be true for the argument to be valid. Even if "not all" (at least one not) neighborhoods are equally opposed, they could all be opposed, just some less strongly than others. If they're all at least opposed enough to block the development of nightclubs, the city will get no nightclubs.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
People who oppose all new development can hurt their cities. The argument is entirely based on a single example, that of nightclubs, which are mostly not popular in their neighborhoods. If those neighborhoods were empowered to reject all new nightclubs, cities wouldn't get new nightclubs.

Answer Anticipation:
OK, what club kid wrote this? Using an example is a valid argumentative strategy, but only if the example is truly representative of the principle the author is attempting to illustrate. The nightclub example does prove that neighbors' anti-development advocacy can prevent a city from getting new nightclubs. However, it's not at all clear that "can be harmful to a city" and "can prevent a city from getting new nightclubs" are the same thing. For this argument to have a shot at being valid, we'd need to assume the example is representative; in other words, that not getting new nightclubs harms cities.

Answer Explanation:
Negate this, and you get "it is NOT a bad thing for a city . . . " which would destroy the argument by indicating that the example is not representative of the phenomenon described in the conclusion. A Necessary Assumption is something that, when negated, destroys the argument, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments resting on a single example are inherently flimsy. If you can prove the example is not relevant to the conclusion, you can blow up the whole argument. Watch out for this form of argument throughout the Logical Reasoning section. You'll also see it pop up in Flaw and Strengthen/Weaken questions, from time to time.

Incorrect. This is irrelevant, since restaurants weren't used as an example in the stimulus.

Incorrect. This could be untrue and the argument could still be valid. Maybe nightclubs don't always help their local neighborhoods, but they do always help the city as a whole.