Explanation

@Milo-Hammer, Happy to help. Let's take a look. The question asks, "The second paragraph most strongly supports the inference that the New Urbanists make which one of the following assumptions?" We are looking for an assumption that the New Urbanists made in the second paragraph of the passage. Because the New Urbanists had a lot to say in the second paragraph, this is really hard to anticipate. However, similar to strengthen with sufficient premise questions, we can negate each of the answer choices to find the correct answer choice to make this question simpler for us. The correct answer, when negated, will make the New Urbanist's argument worse. (A) says, "Most of those who buy houses in sprawling suburbs do not pay drastically less than they can afford." When we negate (A), it says that some people who buy houses pay less than they can afford. If this were true, then it'd be possible to have people in the same neighborhood who have different economic classes/statuses. Because one of the New Urbanists' positions is that suburban sprawl results in economic segregation, negating (A) would really hurt their argument. Thus, this is how we know that (A) is the correct answer choice. (B) says, "Zoning regulations often cause economically uniform suburbs to become economically diverse." When we negate (B), it says that zoning regulations never result in economically uniform suburbs becoming economically diverse. Negating (B) strengthens the New Urbanists' position, as they believe that suburban sprawl results in economic segregation. Thus, we can get rid of this answer choice. (C) says, "City dwellers who do not frequently travel in automobiles often have feelings of hostility toward motorists." When we negate (C), it says that city dwellers who travel in automobiles have feelings of hostility toward motorists. However, this negation would actually strengthen the New Urbanists' position, as this is one of the effects that they believed car travel to have, so we can get rid of (C). (D) says, "Few residents of suburbs are aware of the potential health benefits of walking, instead of driving, to carry out daily tasks." With (D), we don't even have to negate it because the health benefits of walking are totally irrelevant to the New Urbanists' point, so we can get rid of this answer choice due to its irrelevance. (E) says, "People generally prefer to live in houses that look very similar to most of the other houses around them." With (E), the appearance of houses doesn't have any bearing or influence on the New Urbanists' argument, so we don't have to negate this one either. All the New Urbanists care about is how much the houses cost, so (E) is out. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

Thanks, Ravi. Are we to assume that when we encounter a 'most strongly support' question, we can use this negation trick to arrive at the correct answer in every case? If not, how does one knw when negating answer choices is an appropriate strategy?

^I have the same question as Anthony!

Yep, this is a good approach for most strongly supported questions!