Answer A does not explain the decline in mortages. So does the answer really weaken the conclusion if you can prove it is wrong? Thx.
Recently in City X, developers have stopped buying land, contractors have found themselves going without work for longer periods, and banks have issued fewer mortgages. There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously.
Which of the following indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?
This year several housing blocks have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.
The average size of a new home has increased significantly over the past several years.
Re-sales of condominiums have increased over the past six months.
The cost of materials such as lumber and cement has decreased over the past year.
Sales of other big-ticket items, such as automobiles and boats, has remained steady over the past year.
The conclusion of the argument is that "there must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously." Why? Because of several observed factors (e.g., developers not buying land, contractors without work, banks issuing fewer mortgages) that the author assumes result from the fewer people trying to buy new homes. We are asked to find a flaw in the reasoning of this argument.
(A) CORRECT. This suggests that there might be another reason for the decline in home construction: the supply of available housing has been increased through the release of many previously built homes. Therefore, the reasoning in the argument is flawed.
(B) The size of homes, by itself, does not point to any flaw in the argument.
(C) The argument centers on new homes, so re-sales of condominiums are not directly related.
(D) If materials cost less, it seems more likely that any decrease in new home construction could be attributed to the stated causes.