Q17 - Concerned citizen: The mayor, an

[peg_city]

I understand why B is right, but why is A wrong?

The passage is based on an emotional appeal to history

"preserving a sense of municipal history is crucial to maintaining respect for our city government and its authorities"

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Answer choice (A) says that the argument is "solely an emotional appeal to history." There is quite a bit about history in the argument, but it is NOT "solely" an emotional appeal. The first point made by the concerned citizen about being "the last remaining link to the days of the city's founding" is an emotional appeal.

But the part about being "crucial to maintaining respect for our city government and it's authority" is not an emotional appeal. There's a strong reason why you would for reasons void of emotion decide that it's in your interest to have a concern for the authority of the government.

It's the word "solely." It's just too strong. Does that answer your question?

[peg_city]

yes it does. Thanks again

[adarsh.murthy]

I am wonderig why the use of the word is ambiguous....
I think both the quoted statements could refer to economic aspect; that is, cost of doing the restoration OR cost of not doing the restoration. Can you please clarify the ambiguity?

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sure! The ambiguous use of the word "afford" rests in the sense that the mayor is using the word in an economic way. What can we afford? What can't afford? It's a budgeting issue for the mayor.

The concerned citizen, however, appeals to other issues about the government's authority and the connection of the city hall to the city's past. So the issue of "afford" according to the concerned citizen is more about what he/she thinks is right or wrong - a different sense of the word "afford".

Does that make sense?

[mxl392]

I understand the differences in the two "afford"s, but why is it wrong to respond with "can we afford not to?"

What I see is:

Mayor: Can we really spare the money to do this?
Citizen: Can you justify not sparing the money to do this?

Doesn't seem like a flaw, per se.

I picked C, because it seemed like a scope shift in the argument. The mayor is saying there isn't enough money to go around, but the citizen starts talking about authority and respect.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The flaw outlined in answer choice (C) would sound more like because the mayor says something is true, that it is indeed true. But the concerned citizen does not appeal to the authority of the mayor to support his/her conclusion, but rather challenges the mayor.

The citizen responds to one question about whether we can financially afford the restoration of city hall, with a question about whether we can afford (be best served) to not restore city hall. The switch in meaning of the word "afford" allows us to say that the citizen relies on ambiguous word usage - best expressed in answer choice (B).

Incorrect Answers

(A) is too strong in that this argument is not "solely" an emotional appeal. There is evidence the citizen relies on to support his/her claim and there is also a switch in the meaning of an important term.
(C) is not committed in the argument since the concerned citizen does not actually end up agreeing with the mayor.
(D) is not true. There is no reason to believe that the restoration would not be expensive.
(E) is not a flaw committed in the argument. The words "outdated" and "luxury" are not part of the citizen's argument but rather the mayor's.

[aznriceboi17]

Sorry, but I'm also having trouble seeing the flaw in the second usage of 'afford'. In particular, I don't see how the last sentence 'So to the question, ...' is actually PART of the argument.

As I see it, the argument boils down to the two premises:

1) city hall is the only link that preserves sense of municipal history

2) maintain respect for city authority -> preserve sense of municipal history ('crucial' being interpreted as 'necessary', is this fair?)

Conc: maintain respect for city authority -> preserve city hall

In essence, it seems that you could delete the last sentence, and what remained would still contain the entire citizen's argument.

Can someone explain why this is incorrect?

[christine.defenbaugh]

aznriceboi17, I'm so glad you posted! This is a tough question, with a somewhat convoluted argument construction.

You're doing some excellent thinking on breaking down this argument, but I think the problem lies in what you've identified as the conclusion.

Conc: maintain respect for city authority -> preserve city hall

The author never actually says this! This seems like a potentially reasonable way to condense the two premises, but the author never actually presents this concept directly.

So, what IS the conclusion? Let's take a step back and ask ourselves what the author's overriding point it, his final logical step: it's that he disagrees with the mayor. And why does he disagree with the mayor? Because he thinks we can't afford *not* to restore city hall, while the mayor says we can't afford *to* restore it. And why does the author think we can't afford not to restore? Because of your premises above.

So, the core looks something more like this:

PREMISE: Maintaining respect for city gov't requires a sense of municipal history, and city hall is the last link to that
INTERMEDIARY CONCLUSION: We can't afford to NOT preserve city hall
CONCLUSION: The mayor is wrong when he says that we cannot afford to preserve city hall.

All the stuff about "afford" is how the author wends his way toward his final conclusion - that the mayor is wrong. But when he says that we can't afford to let city hall wither away, he's relying on a premise about what that would cost us in terms of loss of respect for the city government and its authority. The mayor, on the other hand, is assessing what the preservation would cost in dollars and cents.

Thus, they are measuring affordability by two completely unrelated systems!

Does this help clear things up a bit?