A IMO.

Because...first option finds the flaw with the argument.The flaw here is the argument is made uder the assumption that "residential developers have stopped buying land, contractors are going without work for longer periods, and specialty workers such as electricians are relying more on less lucrative, existing-home remodeling jobs" happens only when "fewer new residents move to City X".

IMO A.. the argument is weakened or flawed if there exist an alternate reason for decrease in construction jobs. this option points that out.

whats the OA. I feel it is prudent to post OA with question as helps one reconfirm understanding of the question.

thanx

Should be A. Please post OA.

The OA is A

Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land, contractors are going without work for longer periods, and specialty workers such as electricians are relying more on less lucrative, existing-home remodeling jobs. There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously.

Which of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?
A) This year several housing developments have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.
B) The average size of a new home has increased significantly over the past several years.
C) The population of City X is projected to grow by 4% this year, compared with only 3% for last year.
D) The cost of materials such as lumber and cement has decreased over the past year.
E) Sales of other big-ticket items, such as automobiles and boats, have remained steady over the past year.


OA has to be A. Option A says that the people are ready to move but somehow the developers are not able to construct new buildings or build new homes. That is why the answer is A.



Could any of the experts please say what is the difference between weaken and flaw question....

Recently in City X, residential developers have stopped buying land, contractors are going without work for longer periods, and specialty workers such as electricians are relying more on less lucrative, existing-home remodeling jobs. There must be fewer new residents moving to City X than there were previously.

Which of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the reasoning above?

A) This year several housing developments have gone on the market after being held up for months by legal red tape.

Here we have an answer that resolves the paradox: more people are still moving to X, despite no new houses, because
many homes that were not on the market are suddenly available.


B) The average size of a new home has increased significantly over the past several years.

This is a tempting answer because a larger house means more space for new residents
to move into. However, (B) notes a phenomenon that has been happening over the
years vs. (A) where suddenly a whole lot of space is available. Anyhow, bigger homes
do not always mean more people will live in a home.

C) The population of City X is projected to grow by 4% this year, compared with only 3% for last year.

Population growth could be attributed to more births.

D) The cost of materials such as lumber and cement has decreased over the past year.

This doesn't provide a reason more people would be moving in despite less construction. In fact, it becomes even
more surprising that housing has stagnated now that materials cost lost. Regardless, doesn't relate
to argument.

E) Sales of other big-ticket items, such as automobiles and boats, have remained steady over the past year.

Totally out of scope.