ואימא בית וחצר אם כן ליכתוב רחמנא חצרים וכי תימא אי כתב רחמנא חצרים חצר בלא בית משמע ההוא קרפף איקרי:
The Gemara objects: But you can say that the phrase: Houses of the courtyards, means one house and one courtyard, i.e., one house in each courtyard. Consequently, if each courtyard contains two houses, the city should be considered like a walled city. The Gemara explains: If so, let the Merciful One write: “Courtyards,” without mentioning houses, as a courtyard must contain at least one house. And if you would say: If the Merciful One had written only: “Courtyards,” then one might mistakenly have concluded that the verse indicates a courtyard without a house and that if the courtyard contains a house then the city is considered walled, one could not have arrived at that conclusion, since such an area is called an enclosure [karpef ], not a courtyard.
As the Gemara (and the pesukim it is quoting) are dealing with houses, why would the Gemara even have the Hava Amina that the passuk could be understood to mean courtyards without houses? That contradicts the whole premise of the passuk.
To even further make the question illogical, how could a place with no houses be called a city?
And even if the Gemara does ask that question, why doesn’t it answer the obvious answer- that the passuk can’t be understood like that, because it is illogical and contradictory?