PrepTest 112, Section 4, Question 6
Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall of(63 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the commissioner's(6 more words not shown)
- Arelies on information(5 more words not shown)
- Bconfuses being an(7 more words not shown)
- Cinappropriately relies on(4 more words not shown)
- Dinappropriately employs language(3 more words not shown)
- Etakes for granted(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
This plan saves a billion dollars. Why is it the only plan that can do that?
I'll accept the projected shortfall and the statement that there is no feasible way to get more money. Borrowing wouldn't evade that premise; it would be another way to increase available funds. So let's work with the need to cut spending.
The commissioner offers feasible cuts that would close the gap. That shows the plan can work. But another combination of cuts might save the same amount. Perhaps we could reduce spending on different projects, or spread the reductions differently among departments. We aren't told that the proposed list exhausts our options.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question should capture that jump from a solution to the required solution. The word 'only' makes the conclusion much stronger than 'this plan would solve the problem.' We can accept every budget figure and still question why we must choose these particular cuts.
Working the answers
- A
The flaw doesn't depend on showing that the forecast is unreliable. Even if the billion-dollar shortfall is exactly right, the conclusion still overlooks other ways to save a billion. The argument's problem lies in what follows from its information, not an established uncertainty in that information.
- BCorrect
An adequate solution is one that does the job. A required solution is one we cannot do without. The plan's promised savings establish the first description but not the second.
Imagine another feasible package cutting different projects while also saving a billion. Both plans would be adequate, and neither particular plan would be required. The commissioner needs to rule out that possibility before claiming the problem can be solved only by adopting this plan.
- C
Budget forecasters are offering a budget projection. The argument gives us no reason to treat that use of their expertise as inappropriate. More importantly, accepting their estimate still doesn't show that the commissioner's plan is the only way to respond. Questioning the forecasters wouldn't identify that missing step.
- D
We can understand the crucial claims clearly: the shortfall is a billion, the proposed cuts save a billion, and the plan is allegedly required. No unclear term is doing the work in that final leap. Clear language can express an unsupported conclusion, as it does here.
- E
The commissioner explicitly says there is no feasible way to increase funds. That is the situation the spending argument starts from. Even granting it, we can ask whether more than one spending plan would solve the problem. The error is treating this particular set of cuts as necessary, not failing to consider increased funds that the premise has already excluded as infeasible.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.