Question

architecture
the maxim philosophy of “out with the old, in with the new” has been used and abused for years. sometimes, it has more to do with making a profit rather than a legitimate need for something new. across the united states, beautiful, historic architecture is frequently destroyed to make way for modern, high - rise apartment buildings, grandiose homes, and other structures. unfortunately, little is done to protect our history.
over the past several years, it has become increasingly common for big - name developers to tear down victorian, craftsman, and colonial buildings. this destruction is often performed with the thought that it is the property that holds the true value, not the structure that sits on it. likewise, homeowners have begun to value their property’s location over the house they have spent many years living in. little regard is given to the details of craftsmanship that went into these buildings, nor the innate beauty of hand - carved woodwork and ornamentation. “out with the old, in with the new” has become a common refrain, with the new having little to do with preserving or appreciating the history and aesthetic integrity of our country’s oldest buildings and failing to realize that once “the new” is brought in, “the old” is lost to us forever.
it is bad enough that developers and private citizens are blind to the beauty around them, what is worse is that local governments refuse to step in and prevent this destruction. citizens and activists need to stand up to large developers that flash money around in the name of progress. rather than allowing developers to tear down old buildings simply to put up new ones, local governments could enact ordinances to preserve these areas of architecture. if an old building is unusable or unsafe as it is, the structure could be restored instead of demolished. not only would this save one - of - a - kind architecture, it is also an extremely environmentally - conscience concept because less building material is used and waste is reduced.
in addition, local governments could prevent homeowners from tearing down their homes if the buildings are of a historic nature. town officials could easily draw up legislation to preserve all buildings erected before a certain date, which would effectively prevent anyone from destroying historic architecture or buying property with express intent of rebuilding on the land.
if local governments take more of an interest in their towns’ character and history right now, our culture will be preserved for many generations to come.
4
select the correct answer
how could the writer improve the underlined sentence to remove the logical fallacy?
a. everyone who appreciates our country’s oldest buildings should forget the architectural philosophy “out with the old, in with the new”.
b. anyone who accepts the “out with the old, in with the new” architectural philosophy is a menace to society.
c. some people have embraced the “out with the old, in with the new” philosophy, as the number of applications for demolition permits hit a record high.
d. the “out with the old, in with the new” approach to architecture is clearly a result of people who no longer care about our country’s oldest buildings.

Explanation:

Logical fallacies often involve over - generalization or extreme statements. Options A, B, and D make extreme or over - general claims about people who embrace the "out with the old, in with the new" philosophy. Option C is a more neutral and factual statement as it simply states that some people have embraced the philosophy and provides a fact about demolition permits.

Answer:

C. Some people have embraced the "out with the old, in with the new" philosophy, as the number of applications for demolition permits hit a record high.