Loading...
City Y's government plans to subsidize the construction of high-density, high-rise affordable housing downtown in order to improve the city government's finances. The city planners reason that denser housing will allow more tax-paying residents to live in City Y without requiring as much spending on new infrastructure such as roads.
Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for doubting that the plan will achieve its purpose?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| City Y's government plans to subsidize the construction of high-density, high-rise affordable housing downtown in order to improve the city government's finances. |
|
| The city planners reason that denser housing will allow more tax-paying residents to live in City Y without requiring as much spending on new infrastructure such as roads. |
|
"The passage starts with the city's plan and goal, then explains the reasoning behind why they think this plan will work. It's a straightforward cause-and-effect argument."
"Building high-density affordable housing downtown will improve City Y's finances."
"The conclusion (better finances) is supported by one key premise: dense housing brings in more taxpayers while keeping infrastructure costs low, creating a net financial benefit."
Weaken - We need to find information that reduces our belief that the plan will improve the city's finances
The plan's success depends on specific financial outcomes: more tax revenue from new residents must exceed the costs of subsidizing construction, and infrastructure savings must materialize as claimed
Look for scenarios that either reduce the expected benefits (fewer tax-paying residents, less infrastructure savings) or increase the costs (higher construction subsidies, unexpected expenses). Focus on breaking the logical chain: dense housing → more taxpayers + lower infrastructure costs → better city finances
This tells us that high-rise housing has been developed without subsidies, but this doesn't weaken the plan. In fact, it might suggest there's demand for high-rise housing. The city's plan involves subsidizing construction to make it more financially attractive, and this choice doesn't suggest that won't work. It doesn't address whether the plan will bring in more taxpayers or reduce infrastructure costs.
This compares current spending on infrastructure versus housing construction, but it doesn't weaken the plan's logic. The plan isn't about shifting money from infrastructure to housing - it's about building dense housing to avoid FUTURE infrastructure costs while gaining more taxpayers. Current spending patterns don't predict whether the plan will achieve its goal of improving finances.
This directly undermines the plan's core assumption. If affordable downtown housing already has unusually high vacancy rates compared to similar cities, this suggests there's insufficient demand for this type of housing in this location. Building MORE affordable downtown housing (even high-density) would likely result in continued high vacancy rates, meaning the city won't get the expected tax-paying residents. The plan fails at its fundamental premise of attracting more taxpayers.
This is actually expected and doesn't weaken the plan. The plan acknowledges that residents will use existing infrastructure - that's why they want to avoid building NEW infrastructure. As long as existing roads can handle the additional density without requiring expensive expansions, the plan still works. This choice doesn't suggest the existing infrastructure will be inadequate.
This presents an alternative approach but doesn't necessarily weaken the downtown density plan. The city could potentially do both - expand boundaries AND build dense downtown housing. Even if boundary expansion is possible, it might require more new infrastructure (roads to underdeveloped areas) compared to increasing downtown density. This doesn't show that the original plan won't work.