PrepTest 130, Section 1, Question 3
Letter to the editor: The Planning Department budget(40 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(19 more words not shown)
- ADepartments other than(11 more words not shown)
- BSince 2001, the(10 more words not shown)
- CIn some years(12 more words not shown)
- DThe budget figures(9 more words not shown)
- EA restructuring act,(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The budget went from $100,000 to $524,000. That's more than five times as much money. But are we paying for the same work?
Maybe the department now does ten times as much. Imagine that a planning office has taken on the Christmas party, the Halloween party, and the Thanksgiving party in addition to its old responsibilities. A larger budget doesn't by itself tell us that the duties stayed the same.
What we’re looking for
Now keep track of whose claim we're supporting. The editorial says the department spends five times as much to perform the same duties. The letter says that conclusion isn't justified. To support the letter, I want evidence that the department's responsibilities have grown. We can accept the budget figures while challenging what the editorial says those figures mean.
Working the answers
- A
Larger increases in other departments don't show what the Planning Department now does. The finance department could have a much bigger budget while planning's duties remained unchanged. We need information about the department the editorial criticized.
- B
Reduced overtime spending tells us about one part of the budget, not the duties performed. The department might have cut overtime while increasing other expenses. That doesn't establish that it now has more responsibilities or otherwise undermine the editorial's comparison of total spending.
- C
A flat budget in, say, 2010 doesn't change the increase across the whole period. The editorial compares 2001 with this year. Spending could stay constant in some intervening years and still end at more than five times its initial level.
- D
Adjusting for inflation makes the spending comparison more meaningful: the increase cannot simply be dismissed as a change in the value of money. That doesn't support the letter's objection. And it still gives us no evidence that the duties have changed.
- ECorrect
The restructuring act broadened the department's duties after 2001. That directly challenges the editorial's claim that today's larger budget pays for the same duties. We don't have to establish that every added responsibility is worthwhile. Even maintaining a social-media account with only ten followers would be an added duty. The letter's point concerns the comparison of responsibilities, not whether all the department's work is valuable.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.