by maryadkins Tue Oct 21, 2014 4:27 pm
(The answer is actually B.)
Here's why!
So the core here is:
even when fully implemented, the ordinance won't prevent overcrowding
-->
the goal of the ordinance isn't overcrowding
So what's the flaw?
Well, just because something is impossible doesn't mean it can't be a goal. Look at people who buy lottery tickets!
(B) says this.
(A) is off because we're talking about goals NOT being achieved. We're also not talking about primary versus secondary goals.
(C) is wrong because this isn't a distinction made at all.
(D) is wrong because we're not talking about beneficial effects.
(E) is wrong because nothing is treated as sufficient for achieving anything.