LSAT 112 – Section 4 – Question 06

LSAT 112 - Section 4 - Question 06

December 2001

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 0:57

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT112 S4 Q06	+LR +Exp	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Conditional Reasoning +CondR Eliminating Options +ElimOpt	A 4% 159 B 89% 167 C 1% 161 D 1% 155 E 6% 159	131 142 154	+Medium	142.561 +SubsectionEasier

Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall of a billion dollars in the coming fiscal year. Since there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, our only choice is to decrease expenditures. The plan before you outlines feasible cuts that would yield savings of a billion dollars over the coming fiscal year. We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan.

Summarize Argument

The commissioner concludes that the only way to solve the problem of the revenue shortfall is by adopting his plan. He supports this with three premises:

(1) Budget forecasters predict a billion-dollar shortfall next year.

(2) We can't increase funds, so we must cut spending.

(3) This plan would cut spending and save a billion dollars.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of mistaking sufficiency for necessity. The author treats “his plan” as necessary for “solve the problem.” But according to the premises, “his plan” is sufficient, not necessary.

In other words, the commissioner’s argument is flawed because he ignores the possibility that some other plan or solution could also solve the revenue shortfall. His plan might not be the only option.

relies on information that is far from certain

We have no reason to doubt the forecasters’ prediction and we can’t assume that it’s uncertain.

confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution

The commissioner confuses an adequate (or sufficient) solution— his plan— with being a required (or necessary) solution. But just because his plan would solve the problem doesn't mean that it’s the only way to solve the problem.

inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts

The commissioner points to budget forecasters’ prediction about next year’s revenue shortfall. He relies on experts, but he doesn’t do so inappropriately since the experts’ prediction is within their own field.

inappropriately employs language that is vague

The commissioner uses clear and precise language throughout his argument. He doesn't inappropriately rely on vague language.

takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds

The commissioner’s claim that there is no way to increase funds is a premise; we must accept that it’s true. So (E) doesn't describe a flaw in his argument.

LSAT 112 – Section 4 – Question 06

LSAT 112 - Section 4 - Question 06

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 112 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel