Better Instruction

@Remone-Davis, Happy to help! The conclusion of the argument is that further government spending to provide low income housing is not the cure for homelessness. Everything else supports this assertion. The very last sentence of the stimulus is a subsidiary conclusion, which is supported by the statement that the most cursory glance at the real estate section of any newspaper is enough to show that there is no lack of housing units available to rent. The question stem asks us how "homelessness is a serious social problem" plays a role in the argument. So how does "homelessness is a serious social problem" fit into the argument? It's describing a problem the politician acknowledges exists, and the purpose of the argument is to discredit one proposed method of solving this problem. This statement is provided as context/background information that is to be taken as fact. The argument is not attempting to cast doubt on the belief that homelessness is a serious social problem; rather, it's arguing that one particular method of fighting the problem of homelessness is not the solution. Let's look at the answer choices now. Answer A is incorrect because the statement is not suggesting an alternative perspective; it's just stating a fact. We can get rid of this choice. Answer B is incorrect because the argument is not trying to resolve the problem of homelessness; what the argument is doing is simply rejecting one possible solution to the problem of homelessness. This is an important distinction, and because of it, we can get rid of B. Answer C is correct because the statement is provided as a fact, and it's compatible with either accepting the conclusion or rejecting it. Homelessness can be a serious social problem regardless of whether or not the politician is correct regarding his or her conclusion. Answer D is incorrect because the statement is not summarizing a position the argument is directed toward rejecting. The statement is presented as a fact, and the argument works to discredit the idea that the government should fund low-income housing. Answer E is incorrect because it isn't a necessary assumption/premise. Even if homelessness is not a serious social problem, the argument's conclusion could still hold. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

Thank you, I am still confused with how D is just presenting a fact and not summarizing a position it is directed against rejecting.

@zgnewquist, Happy to help. The argument isn't discrediting the fact that homelessness is a serious social problem; rather, what it's discrediting is the notion that homelessness can be solved through subsidizing housing. The argument isn't saying that homelessness isn't a serious social problem. This is why (D) is incorrect. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!