Self-study
Letter to the editor: The Planning Department budget increased from $100,000 in 2001 to $524,000 for this year. ████████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███████████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ██ ███ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ███████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the Planning Department’s budget increase from $100,000 to $524,000 doesn’t justify the claim that the Planning Department spends five times as much to perform the same duties as before. No support is provided for this argument.
Notable Assumptions
In order for the author to claim that the budget increase doesn’t mean the Planning Department now spends five times as much to perform the same duties, the author must assume that the Planning Department no longer performs only the same duties as before--perhaps it has taken on new duties--or that its budget is somehow not directly reflective of the money spent on its duties.
3.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ █████████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████████
a
Departments other than ███ ████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████ █████████ █████ █████
Irrelevant. Knowing about other departments doesn't help us decide whether or not the Planning Department, specifically, is spending five times as much to carry out the same duties.
b
Since 2001, the ████████ ██████████ ███ ████████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ████
Irrelevant. Knowing that the department spends less on one specific aspect of its budget doesn't tell us whether it has taken on new duties, or whether it spends five times as much overall on the same duties as before.
c
In some years ███████ ████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ███ █████████
This isn't relevant. Even if the budget hasn't increased steadily, the fact remains that it has increased overall from $100,000 to $524,000.
d
The budget figures ████ ██ ███ ████████ █████████ ████ ████████ ███ ██████████
This doesn’t strengthen the author’s argument. It just rules out the possibility that inflation was a contributing factor to the apparent increase in the budget. If anything, this just emphasizes the size of the increase: more than five times as much, in real terms. But this information doesn't help us decide what is being done with the additional money.
e
A restructuring act, ██████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████████
This supports the argument made in the letter. If the Planning Department’s duties have expanded beyond what they were in 2001, then it is likely not true that the 500% increase in the budget is solely being spent on the same duties as before.