#6 - Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue

[rachue]

I can see the reasoning behind B for this one, but I don't understand why A can't be correct ("relies on information that is far from certain"). The budget forecasters could be wrong in their projection of the revenue shortfall, and if they are, then the commissioner's argument relies on faulty information.

Many thanks in advance!

[Nikki Siclunov]

You should never attack a statement used as a premise for a given conclusion. The forecasters project a billion dollar shortfall: there is no evidence that such information is far from certain. Furthermore, the second premise is stated as a fact, not an opinion: there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, which is why our only choice is to decrease expenditures. You need to take these premises at face value. The only questionable statement in this argument is the conclusion, arguing that a solution requires adopting the proposed plan.

[rachue]

So basically we should always consider premises 100% solid and only challenge the conclusions made in arguments?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Yes! Premises are often inconclusive, but never inaccurate - that is, you should never attempt to challenge their factual veracity.

[rachue]

OK, thanks for clearing that up.

[akanshalsat]

How do we know though that the plan is adequate? isnt it required since thats the only plan of action as they say "our only choice is..."?

[Adam Tyson]

The conclusion is that it is required, but that is the problem - the evidence didn't establish that it was required, but only that it was adequate (that it would work). The argument is, essentially, "it will work, therefore we have to do it." But maybe some other plan would also work, and so we don't have to be this one?

[Iam180]

The conclusion is that it is required, but that is the problem - the evidence didn't establish that it was required, but only that it was adequate (that it would work). The argument is, essentially, "it will work, therefore we have to do it." But maybe some other plan would also work, and so we don't have to be this one?

Before the third sentence, the premise says that "our only choice is to decrease expenditure." doesn't this make the conclusion valid? Since it is simply saying that this is the only solution since our other solution "feasible fund increase" is not available.

Thanks alot for your help!

[James Finch]

Hi Iam180,

It's true that the budget needs to have expenditures cut, but what we don't know is what will be cut. It could be schools, roads, police, parks, maybe even all of the above. This commissioner is presenting one plan for budget cuts, but his plan isn't necessarily the only possible way to eliminate the shortfall. Maybe the commissioner's plan calls for cuts to roads but not schools, and it would be feasible to do the opposite and cut money to schools but not roads. The stimulus fails to establish what must be cut, so it can't validly conclude that this plan is the only feasible way to make budget cuts to eliminate the shortfall.

Hope this clears things up!

[PresidentLSAT]

Ugh! I hate that I got this wrong.

I literally wrote out the flaw. Cutting salaries, laying workers, partnering with vendors are all ways we can cut expenditures. The author wrongly claims that one solution is the only solution .

The adequate vs required aspect threw me off. How is it "required?"