LSAT Explanation PT 33, S1, Q24: Supervisor: Our next budget proposal will

LSAT Question Stem

The supervisor's reasoning is flawed because it presumes, without giving warrant, that 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The supervisor presents the following argument:

Premise: Normally about half of all budget proposals that the vice president considers are approved.

Premise: Our last five budget proposals have all been turned down.

Conclusion: Our next budget proposal will probably be approved.

The supervisor's reasoning is flawed as it assumes that the last five budget proposals being turned down affects the likelihood that the next budget proposal will be approved. An "Evaluate" question for this argument would be: "Does the outcome of the last five budget proposals influence the likelihood of the next budget proposal being approved?"

Now, let's discuss the question type and the answer choices. The question type is Flaw, which asks us to identify the flaw in the supervisor's reasoning.

a) The supervisor's reasoning does not assume that the last five budget proposals' having been turned down guarantees that the next five budget proposals will be approved. The supervisor only claims that the next proposal will probably be approved, not that it is guaranteed.

b) The supervisor's reasoning does not assume that the vice president is required to approve at least half of all budget proposals submitted. The passage only states that normally about half of the proposals are approved, not that the vice president is required to do so.

c) Correct answer. The supervisor's reasoning is flawed because it presumes, without giving warrant, that having the last five budget proposals turned down affects the likelihood that the next budget proposal will be turned down (which in turn affects the likelihood of it being approved). This is equivalent to assuming that the past outcomes of the proposals influence the future outcomes, which is not necessarily true.

d) The supervisor's reasoning does not assume that the majority of the last five budget proposals deserved to be turned down. The argument is about the likelihood of the next proposal being approved, not the merits of the previous proposals.

e) The supervisor's reasoning does not assume that the likelihood that a budget proposal will be approved is influenced by the amount of money that the budget proposal requests. The passage does not mention any information about the amount of money requested in the proposals.

In conclusion, the correct answer is C, as the supervisor's reasoning is flawed because it presumes that having the last five budget proposals turned down affects the likelihood that the next budget proposal will be turned down (and thus, affects the likelihood of it being approved).