A town known for its historic architecture is considering implementing stricter building codes to preserve the unique character of its downtown area. These new codes would require all new constructions and major renovations to adhere to specific architectural styles and use certain traditional materials. Proponents argue this will boost tourism and property values by maintaining the town's appeal. Opponents contend that such codes will stifle development and make housing unaffordable. Which of the following, if true, would most strongly support the opponents' contention?
- AThe specific traditional materials and architectural details required by the new codes are significantly more expensive than modern alternatives.
- BTowns with similar historic preservation codes have seen a significant increase in tourism over the past decade.
- CMany existing buildings in the downtown area already comply with the proposed aesthetic guidelines.
- DA recent survey indicates that most residents prioritize affordable housing over strict architectural preservation.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. The specific traditional materials and architectural details required by the new codes are significantly more expensive than modern alternatives.
Opponents argue that the codes will stifle development and make housing unaffordable. This argument hinges on the idea that adhering to the codes will be costly. Option B directly supports this by stating that the required materials and details are significantly more expensive, thus increasing construction costs, which can then lead to higher property prices and potentially deter development due to increased financial burden.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. This supports the proponents' argument about boosting tourism, not the opponents' contention about affordability and stifled development.
- C. This suggests that some buildings already fit the criteria, which might ease implementation for some, but doesn't address the increased cost for new projects or renovations that *don't* comply.
- D. This reflects public *preference* but doesn't provide a factual basis for *why* the codes would lead to unaffordable housing or stifled development.
Supporting a Contention
To support a contention means to provide factual evidence or logical reasoning that directly reinforces the truth or likelihood of a particular claim or argument being made, often by demonstrating its underlying mechanism or consequence.
- Provides direct evidence for the claim.
- Explains the mechanism of the claim.
- Shows logical consequence of the claim.
Memory trick: Claims gain strength from direct evidence and clear consequences.