LSAT Explanation PT 30, S4, Q6: Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue

LSAT Question Stem

The reasoning in the commissioner's argument is flawed because this argument 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument presented in the passage. The commissioner states that there is a projected revenue shortfall of a billion dollars in the coming fiscal year. This is a premise. The commissioner also states that there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, and therefore, the only choice is to decrease expenditures. This is another premise. The conclusion of the argument is that the problem can only be solved if the proposed plan, which outlines feasible cuts to save a billion dollars, is adopted.

To simplify this argument, let's use an example. Imagine a household facing a budget shortfall due to decreased income. The family must cut expenditures to balance their budget. They propose a plan to cut spending on entertainment and dining out. The argument is that the only way to solve the budget problem is to adopt this plan.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument would be: "Are there any other feasible plans to decrease expenditures that could solve the budget problem?"

Now, let's discuss the question type and answer choices. This is a Flaw question, which asks us to identify the flaw in the commissioner's argument.

a) The argument does not rely on information that is far from certain. The budget forecasters' projection is a premise, and we must take it as a given. Challenging the factual veracity of premises is not the correct approach for Flaw questions.

b) This is the correct answer. The argument confuses being an adequate solution (the proposed plan) with being a required solution. The argument assumes that the proposed plan is the only feasible way to decrease expenditures and solve the budget problem, but it does not consider the possibility that there may be other feasible plans.

c) The argument does not inappropriately rely on the opinions of experts. The budget forecasters' projection is a premise, and we must take it as a given.

d) The argument does not inappropriately employ language that is vague. The language used is clear and specific.

e) The argument does not take for granted that there is no way to increase available funds. This is a premise that is clearly stated and must be taken as a given.

In summary, the flaw in the commissioner's argument is that it confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution, assuming that the proposed plan is the only feasible way to decrease expenditures and solve the budget problem.