PrepTest 120, Section 4, Question 21
Administrator: Because revenue fell by 15 percent this(39 more words not shown)
The administrator's reasoning is flawed(3 more words not shown)
- Apresumes, without providing(19 more words not shown)
- Bpresumes, without providing(17 more words not shown)
- Cignores the possibility(18 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes, without providing(15 more words not shown)
- Eignores the possibility(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What about cutting spending somewhere else?
The university could postpone equipment purchases, spend less on buildings, or reduce some other part of its budget. Those may have costs of their own, but the administrator hasn't ruled them out. Naming two ways to save money doesn't make them the only two ways.
I also paused at the opening: lower revenue doesn't automatically require a smaller budget if the university previously had a surplus. But even accepting the stated need to cut next year's budget, the final step still fails. Refusing to eliminate faculty positions doesn't force the university to reduce faculty salaries.
What we’re looking for
Imagine saying, “I can live in Utah or Wyoming. I won't live in Utah, so I must live in Wyoming.” What happened to all the other states? That's the flaw we're looking for: the administrator treats two possible solutions as an exhaustive list.
Working the answers
- A
The administrator never says salary cuts would save more than eliminating positions. Both are presented as ways to achieve the needed reduction. Choosing between them doesn't depend on one saving more; the problem is assuming that rejecting one leaves only the other.
- BCorrect
This supplies the restriction the argument silently relies on: no budget reduction without eliminating positions or reducing salaries. If those really were the only options, refusing to eliminate positions would leave salary cuts. But the administrator hasn't established that restriction. Other kinds of spending could provide another route.
- C
The argument says revenue fell 15 percent, not that the budget must be cut exactly 15 percent. A smaller required reduction would still leave the same question: why must it come out of faculty salaries? C challenges a numerical claim the administrator doesn't make.
- D
We aren't told that anyone will quit, and the conclusion doesn't rely on that prediction. The administrator recommends reducing pay after ruling out eliminating positions. Whether faculty members would accept the cuts is a further question, not the unstated restriction that produces the conclusion.
- E
Combining the two listed methods doesn't solve the problem here. The administrator has expressly ruled out eliminating any faculty positions, so a plan that eliminates some positions conflicts with that decision. The overlooked alternatives are other ways of reducing spending while keeping all the positions.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.