Q2 - Economist: To the extent that

[qtcherrysyrup]

Can someone explain this question, please?
I chose D.
The correct answer is A but I don't quite undersand.

Thanks!!!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I can see why you chose answer choice (D). The conclusion is stated right next to the claim they are asking about. The conclusion of the argument is that "it should not be assumed that the profit motive is at fault."

They are asking about the claim, "To the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing." This claim limits the extent of the conclusion in that this conclusion is only about homelessness due to a lack of available housing. This argument is not about homelessness due to other reasons, such as drug/alcohol abuse.

That's why answer choice (A) correctly describes the role of this claim in the argument.

Visualized

Limit on conclusion, conclusion. Subsidiary conclusion; premise.

Not sure if that helps, but that's how I see the role of each claim in this argument.

Does that answer your question?

[cwolfington]

D) would be correct if the entire first sentence was in question.

The argument is not about whether or not the profit motive is at fault for the problem of homelessness, but whether it's at fault for homelessness "to the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing." This narrows the focus of the argument as it pertains to homelessness, which is best expressed in answer choice A).

[missbenyamin]

I can see why you chose answer choice (D). The conclusion is stated right next to the claim they are asking about. The conclusion of the argument is that "it should not be assumed that the profit motive is at fault."

They are asking about the claim, "To the extent that homelessness arises from a lack of available housing." This claim limits the extent of the conclusion in that this conclusion is only about homelessness due to a lack of available housing. This argument is not about homelessness due to other reasons, such as drug/alcohol abuse.

That's why answer choice (A) correctly describes the role of this claim in the argument.

Visualized

Limit on conclusion, conclusion. Subsidiary conclusion; premise.

Not sure if that helps, but that's how I see the role of each claim in this argument.

Does that answer your question?

You mentioned that in the last sentence, the first part is the subsidiary conclusion, while the second is a premise. Can you elaborate on how you figured that out? (I thought the last part was the SC.)

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm not too keen on calling either one a subsidiary conclusion.

Do they pass the Therefore test?

Investors will provide housing if profitable
THEREFORE
You can't expect investors to take risks w/o potential benefit

vs.

You can't expect investors to take risks w/o potential benefit
THEREFORE
Investors will provide housing if profitable

I don't really like either of those "arguments", but I do think the second one is closer to having some flow.

It just seems more to me like the argument is:

investors would provide housing if it were profitable
+
you can't expect investors to take risks otherwise
=============
therefore, profit motive isn't to blame for any lack of available housing

Hope this helps.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Whenever you see the phrase, "insofar as", or "to the extent that " you know that it will act as a limiting factor and limit the scope of what it's talking about. In this particular answer choice the phrase in question is limiting discussion of homelessness to the extent that it arises from a lack of available housing. There could very well be and i'd venture to say there are other factors that contribute to homeless, but the phrase limits the scope of discussion of homeless insofar as it is caused by lack of available housing.

(A) On first glance I had no idea what the hell this meant, but I didn't eliminate it. If you don't know what an answer choice means, DO NOT eliminate it, chances are it's the right answer masquerading as an incorrect answer choice that appears out of scope. Keep for now
(B) Wrong. The primary cause of homelessness is not even discussed in the stimulus.
(C) it is part of the conclusion but does not support it
(D) it is part of the conclusion but is not the conclusion in and of itself.
(E) it does no such thing.


Through PoE we can select (A), but to be sure you can try to confirm it as the right answer. Is the phrase in question doing exactly what (A) is saying. The answer is yes. It is limiting the discussion/argument to part of the problem of homelessness, i.e, that profit motive is not to blame for homeliness, insofar as homelessness arises from a lack of available housing. Perhaps the profit motive is to blame for homeliness in other regards. Pick it and move on.