Q3 - Letter to the editor: The Planning

[melnauni]

I know that the correct answer choice is E. But how do we know what year is meant by this year? Does it automatically mean the year in which the test was made? What is this year refers to 2002. Then the answer wouldn't work. For this reason I was thinking that answer B is more appealing. Why is it wrong?

[jw241]

Which claim am I aiming to support the Planning Dept. or the editorialist because the questions asks for me to support the editorialists argument but answer choice E justifies the Planning Departments budget in accordance with duties and weakens the editorialist’s argument in that the money is not justified in accordance with duties performed. One can assume the editorials over looked this act before they made their claim. Please explain this to me.

[timmydoeslsat]

This one is a matter of keeping our arguments straight within this stimulus.

This stimulus is a letter to the editor. Its conclusion is that the figures cited (100,000 to 524,000) do not justify the claim of in the editorial of the department spending five times as much money to perform the same duties.

When I first saw this stimulus, I looked at the figures given and the second amount is clearly 5 times as much. What is at issue here is to perform the same duties. And the idea of the planning department being broadened strengthens the idea of the letter to the editor's conclusion, which was saying that the editorial's conclusion was unjustified.

If it is in fact the case that the planning department was broadened in its duties, then this supports the idea that the five time increase in money is not to perform the same duties, but to perform even more or different duties than it did at one time.

In terms of the dates, we must remember that this was the September 2009 test.

It gives us a date of 2001 and then uses the term "this year" for the second date.

We do not know what year it is referring to exactly, but answer choice E is consistent with it. Had the stimulus stated that the increase occurred from 2001 to 2002, then (E) would absolutely be out of scope due to it not being able to support the difference of amounts from 01-02.

[ohthatpatrick]

What he ^ said.

But let me add a couple thoughts:

==the question stem
The confusingly worded question stem says, "what would support the claim made in the letter regarding the justification of the editorial's conclusion?"

What is the claim made in the letter regarding the justification?

The 100k --> 500K increase does not justify the conclusion that the dept spends 5x the money as it did in 2001 to perform the same duties.

So this ^^ is the claim we must strengthen.

==other answers

(A) other departments are beyond the scope of our conclusion

(B) it doesn't matter whether a certain part of the Dept.'s budget has gone down (the part allocated towards overtime pay) ... that won't change the fact that the overall budget is still 5 times larger. As Timmy said, since we can't change the fact that the budget is overall 5 times larger, we can really only weaken the "to perform the same duties" part of the conclusion.

(C) the years in between are irrelevant, since the conclusion is only a comparison between 2001 and the present year.

(D) this strengthens the editorial and weakens our argument. (we might have tried to argue that 500k in the present year is not really "five times as much as" 100k in 2001, due to inflation. this answer, however, rules out that objection)

[ganbayou]

I'm a little confused with answer D. I thought if there is inflation, prices rises, so although it seems the amount went 5 times, it actually does not.　(they worth the same.)
So I thought D is correct...
Why is D wrong? I read the explanation above but I'm still confused. How does D strengthen the editor's argument?

Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

When you see a comparison between an old price and a current price, they often say the old price is adjusted for inflation.

For example, say that milk cost $1 in 1970 and cost $2 in 1990.

Does milk cost twice as much in 1990?

Not necessarily. You want to compare the higher cost of milk to the higher rates of income people might have, or compare it to other goods and services.

If the median income in 1970 was $30,000 and in 1990 was $60,000, then milk is not really twice as expensive as before. It's the same price. Its cost has risen in proportion with wages.

If the cost of milk in 1970 were adjusted for inflation, we would say that it cost $2 in 1970. That figure allows someone to immediately compare the cost of milk in 1970 with that in 1990 and conclude, "Oh, milk is still the same price."

The author of this argument could have tried to argue that going from $100k in 2001 to $500k+ this year is not really "five times as much" because inflation is contributing to making the current price $500k.

He could have said that $100k in 2001 is equivalent to $300k in "today's dollars". That would mean that we really only went from $300 to $500 ... that we're spending almost twice as much (but not FIVE times as much).

But since the figures were already adjusted for inflation, he can't make that argument.

[abegin93]

did this question require outside knowledge regarding the intricacies how inflation really works in order to properly eliminate question D? If so, how can one prepare for something like this?

Allie

[tommywallach]

I would say it's considered general knowledge. There's no way to "prepare" though, and the odds that you'll actually be presented with something you don't know on test day are super slim. Fear not!

-t

[mswang7]

Premise: budget from $100k to ~$500k
Concl: That doesn't mean spending is now 5x to perform the same duties <- this is key
Lead to me prephrase something about the scope of the duties increasing

A. Other than planning dept? We don't know/care. this is out of scope
B. That's nice & all but that doesn't change the overall budget/spending is 5x nor does it explain any changes in scope of duties
C. Again this is irrelevant. We are only discussing the change between point A & B, not in between
D. Does not address the scope of duties
E. Matches our prephrase

[Laura Damone]