Passage Summary: A politician thinks the city shouldn't spend money on new street signs because nobody has complained about the old ones yet.

Conclusion: The city's plan to replace all street signs is a significant waste of resources.

Reasoning: There have been no public complaints regarding the readability or functionality of the current street signs.

Analysis: The politician's argument rests entirely on the assumption that 'no complaints' means 'no problem.' To evaluate this, we need to know if there are other reasons to replace the signs that wouldn't necessarily trigger a public complaint. For instance, do the new signs meet new safety regulations, or do they help people who might struggle in silence, like those with visual impairments? Look for an answer choice that investigates whether the current signs actually meet the needs of the city, regardless of the volume of complaints.