In the 1990s, there were two lines of argument against buying properties to let them out instead of living in them yourselves. One was the moral argument that you were driving the boom for
your own profit and making houses unaffordable for everyone else; the other was the practical
argument that houses were a risky investment. Despite these objections, the buy-to-let market
continued to grow and now, twenty years later, the result is that the housing market is totally
inaccessible to most of a generation. Rents in London have gone up eight times faster than
wages. Plainly, no social good will come of this. Rents will continue to rise, and people who live
in London will see their finances become more and more precarious.
Which one of the following best expresses the main conclusion of the above argument?
A Buy-to-let has made housing unaffordable in London.
B Rent increases have exceeded wage increases in London.
C No social good will come of buy-to-let.
D Rents in London will continue to rise.
E Investing in buy-to-let is immoral.
I don't get why the answer is C and not A.
A is referring only to housing costs, but C is referring to everything people need sufficient money for: “their finances...”
Socially, what happens when many people don’t have enough money to support themselves?