Question

The move to shift the fiscal obligation to provide community services away from the Federal government to the local communities is welcomed by its proponents as a step forward on the road to true democracy. They claim that by making communities responsible for funding everything from health, welfare and education to the emergency services and housing, not only will improve these services but also foster a greater sense of community. \textbf{However, such a move would mean that densely-populated areas, having a greater tax base, would be better off, and sparsely-populated, rural communities would still be dependent on supplemental subsidies from Federal sources.
In the given argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?}

• A. The first is a claim that the author calls in question, and the second is a claim that goes against the first.
• B. The first is a claim that the author endorses, and the second is a claim that the author calls in question.
• C. The first is a counter-evidence to the second, and the second is the proponents' prediction.
• D. The first is the author's claim, and the second is the proponents' finding that puts the first questionable.
• E. The first is a prediction that the author elaborates further, and the second is the objection that the argument nullifies.

Hint:

Boldface questions are about structure. First, map the argument: find the main conclusion, the premises, and any counterarguments. Use transition words like "however," "therefore," and "since" as guides. If the options don't seem to fit the text, double-check if a different part of the text might have been the intended bolded section.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is a "Boldface" question that requires analyzing the logical structure of an argument and identifying the role played by specific parts of the text.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's analyze the structure of the argument: - Proponents' Position: Shifting fiscal obligation to local communities is a good thing (a "step forward to true democracy").
- Proponents' Reasoning: It will improve services and foster community.
- Author's Counter-Argument: The author introduces a counterpoint with the word "However." This signals that the author is about to present an argument against the proponents' position.
- First Boldface (BF1): "...densely-populated areas, having a greater tax base, would be better off". This is the first part of the author's counter-argument. It's a consequence the author predicts.
- Second Boldface (BF2): "...sparsely-populated, rural communities would still be dependent on supplemental subsidies from Federal sources." This is the second part of the author's counter-argument.
Now, let's analyze the options based on this structure. There appears to be a significant error in the question's text or the options provided, as they do not accurately describe the roles. However, assuming this is a flawed question from a source and we must choose the 'best fit', a common error in such questions is misplacing the bolded text.
If we assume the first bolded part was intended to be the proponents' claim ("improve these services but also foster a greater sense of community") and the second bolded part was the author's counterpoint ("sparsely-populated, rural communities would still be dependent..."), let's re-evaluate option (A):
- The first is a claim that the author calls in question: Under this corrected assumption, the author is indeed questioning the proponents' optimistic claim by introducing the "However" section. This part fits. - and the second is a claim that goes against the first: The author's point about rural dependency directly contradicts or "goes against" the proponents' general claim that the move will be an overall improvement. This part also fits.
Given that none of the options make sense with the bolding as shown in the text, and option (A) makes perfect sense with a plausible correction of the bolded text, we will proceed with this interpretation. The original question is likely flawed. The author uses the two boldfaced claims (as presented in the text) together to call the overall proposal into question. They are two facets of the same objection: the proposal will increase inequality. BF2 does not go against BF1; it complements it. Therefore, the question as written is logically inconsistent with the provided options. The solution provided assumes a corrected version of the question for the sake of finding a coherent answer.

Step 3: Final Answer:
Based on the high likelihood of an error in the question's formulation and interpreting it to be logical, option (A) becomes the only viable answer under the assumption that the first boldface was meant to be the proponents' conclusion.