Q24 - Supervisor: Our next budget

[mcrittell]

I'm having trouble understanding why C is correct. I nixed that answer choice almost immediately because it said that "the next budget proposal will be turned down." Shouldn't it say that it will "probably be approved" to make this answer choice correct?

Additionally, I didn't know how to par down A and B.

[timmydoeslsat]

You are closer than you think on this one.

This is an identify the flaw question.

The core can be seen as this:

Normally, about half of all budget proposals that VP considers are approved.

+

Last five budget proposals have been turned down

---> Therefore,

Our next proposal will probably be approved


This question stem is great in the fact that it gives us "presumes, without giving warrant, that" which means we can use the negation technique on an answer choice we like. Negating this answer choice would destroy the argument and show that this presumption (assumption) was, in fact, necessary for the argument, albeit flawed, to survive.

Answer choices:

A) You can eliminate this one because the supervisor did not say it was a guarantee that the next one would be approved, nonetheless the NEXT FIVE! Eliminate.

B) The author does NOT state that the VP is required to approve at least half. Two things why I can say this with certainty. First, the stimulus says "about half" which gives us leeway below half and more than half. Second, normally does not equal require. The stimulus says that the VP normally does action A, but nowhere does it state that he is required to do so. Eliminate.

C) I like this answer. Let us negate it.

"Having the last five budget proposals turned down DOES NOT affect the likelihood that the next budget proposal will be turned down."

If that were true, then the author could not state that the next one would "probably" pass. (Probably = more than half of the time, as are the words normally and likely.)

Do not lose sight of what this answer choice is stating. The author, while talking about the likelihood of something being approved, is also...AT THE SAME TIME, by NECESSITY also talking about the likelihood of something been turned down. Both are part of the same 100% total.

D) Deserved? Does not assume that.

E) Amount of money? Does not assume that.

[mcrittell]

So is this an assumption question, basically?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

That's exactly right, this is an assumption question. in fact... it's a Necessary Assumption question. Keep in mind that all assumption questions are flawed. In fact every question in the Assumption Family of questions are flawed in that they all rely on unwarranted assumptions!

Nice work!

[mcrittell]

That's exactly right, this is an assumption question. in fact... it's a Necessary Assumption question. Keep in mind that all assumption questions are flawed. In fact every question in the Assumption Family of questions are flawed in that they all rely on unwarranted assumptions!

Nice work!

How do you know it's a necessary assumption? Also, how would you attack these questions as opposed to sufficient assumptions or "regular" assumption questions?

[timmydoeslsat]

When you have a situation where all you see is the word presumes or assumes or presupposes, then those are all necessary assumption indicators.

A sufficient assumption is an assumption that guarantees the conclusion to follow.

The phrase of "presumes that..." does not give ANY indication of this being assumption that LEADS to the conclusion following by necessity.

Necessary Assumption question stem examples:

The argument presumes

The argument depends on assuming

The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions


Sufficient Assumption question stem examples:

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion of the argument to be properly drawn.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

How do you know it's a necessary assumption? Also, how would you attack these questions as opposed to sufficient assumptions or "regular" assumption questions?

timmydoeslsat did a nice job explaining how we know that this question is a Necessary Assumption question.

Let me just add how that affects your approach. For Necessary Assumption questions we're looking for relatively weak answers that bridge a gap or answers that rule out something that would be very detrimental to the argument's reasoning. For Sufficient Assumption questions, almost always we are bridging a gap in the reasoning.

Incorrect answers on Necessary Assumption questions could suffer from either being too strong or too specific. Weakness and vagueness are good qualities of a correct answer on Necessary Assumptions. Furthermore, on Necessary Assumptions we can always use the Negation Test to check the "most favored answer choice" to see if it actually was necessary to the argument.

Incorrect answers on Sufficient Assumptions are too weak to bridge the gap or are too vague to trigger the given relationships. Correct answers however, cannot be too strong or too specific.

Generally, knowing the question type dictates our expectations on how to work through the question and determines the sort of qualities we would expect to see in the correct and incorrect answers.

Make sense?

[mcrittell]

I think what threw me off was that C says "turned down." Shouldn't it say "turned up"?

[timmydoeslsat]

I think what threw me off was that C says "turned down." Shouldn't it say "turned up"?

This is a ploy by the test writers to show the flip side of what the conclusion in the stimulus stated.

The conclusion in the stimulus was: our next budget proposal will probably be approved.

Probably = More than likely

Which means, in this context, it will be less likely that that the proposal will be turned down.


The fact that something would affect the likelihood of it being turned down, by necessity, affected the likelihood of it being approved!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

nice explanation Timmy!

I'd agree completely, and add that you should keep that in mind whenever there is a strict binary scenario. Whenever it's a completely binary scenario, knowing the chances of one event occurring implies the chances of the other event as well.

I think what threw me off was that C says "turned down." Shouldn't it say "turned up"?

I do see your point mcrittell. I think that's something you'll begin to develop some flexibility on. It's really important to use the language to make eliminations, but's also important to give them the flexibility to say things in different ways, so that the text can be written in way that disguises connections - even though it doesn't change the meaning. Sometimes it will and sometimes it won't. It's okay to be strict with the language here, but if you end up eliminating all the answer choices, it'd be important to grant them flexibility with their language. It'd be one of the first things I did in order to get an answer after having eliminated everything.

Hope that helps!

[roflcoptersoisoi]

P: Vice President usually approves about half of the budgets he considers and our last 5 have been turned down.

C: Our budget proposal will PROBABLY be approved

Flaws: Fallacy of division. Presupposes that what is true of all budgets the vice president considers is true the budgets you submit to him. The author fails to consider that perhaps all the budgets you submit are among all those that he rejects.
Further, the author also takes for granted that the likelihood of future budgets being passed is affected by the fact that the author budgets have been turned down.

Task: Look for the answer choice that is necessary to the author's argument.


(A) Tempting, this is sufficient but not necessary to the author's argument. Note, the author concluded that it was probable, not guranteed that the budget will be approved. So it follows that the fact that their last proposals were rejected GUARANTEES that their next ones will be approved, is not required for the argument to be valid. This completely substantiates the premise-conclusion relationship, the correct answer choice will not.

(B) The author does not presuppose this. If this were the case then the proposals would not have been turned down.
(C) Bingo. This is an assumption required for the argument, if negated it destroys the argument.

(D) This just gives us a reason why the other proposals were down, but it doesn't describe the flaw.

(E) This isn't an assumption made by the author. We aren't even told anything about the money the budget proposal is requesting.