Q14 - Although inflated government spending

[jardinsouslapluie5]

The more I take time to understand the stimulus, the more I get confused.

Could you explain what the stimulus saying?
I don't know how I got this correct...

[timmydoeslsat]

So we have a flaw question stem.

This argument concludes that the weapons production plant must be viewed as equally wasteful of tax dollars as the weapons research lab.

What evidence is given to conclude this?

The fact that a certain weapons production plant will be reopened and it would violate numerous laws, and the government could pay the same cost for production at a safer place.

Notice this does nothing to address whether the weapons production plant is as wasteful of tax dollars as the weapons research lab.

Violation of laws /= wasteful spending.

In fact, you could argue that perhaps this plant is cutting certain corners, which is a law violation, but this would in effect spend less tax dollars on the pesky safety stuff.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Exactly right Timmy...

Conclusion: Weapons production plants must be viewed as equally wasteful of taxpayer dollars.

Why? Because the government is going to reopen a weapons plant that will violate 69 environmental, health, and safety laws when the weapons could be made somewhere else for the same price without so many safety concerns.

How does that prove that the weapons plant is wasteful with taxpayer money? Where does that suggest that the weapons plant could have produced the weapons for less money?

The evidence is simply irrelevant to the conclusion, which is best expressed in answer choice (C).

Incorrect Answers

(A) is true, but does not express an issue with drawing the argument's conclusion that the weapons plant is wasteful of taxpayer dollars (stay focused on the conclusion).
(B) is not true. The point conceded was that inflated government spending is wasteful of taxpayer dollars, which does not undermine the argument's conclusion.
(D) is not true. We are not given information about which expenditures are necessary.
(E) does not describe an error of reasoning within the argument. The argument does not claim that weapons plants are wasteful because they are similar to research laboratories, but instead offers evidence other than a direct comparison.

[dean.won]

Isnt the fact that its being built more expensively than need be is a waste of tax money??

Edit.. oops i was sure the argument said at a lower cost when i first read it LOL

[Mab6q]

I think the issue with this question , and what certainly confused me , was I thought there was a shift in meaning with the word "waste". As first , I thought they were talking about environmental waste and then wasting tax payer dollars. That's what makes the second part of the argument seem not as bad, because the safety issues might be tied to environmental waste, if someone , like me, interprets it that way. But I see why c is correct now. Thank you.

[jones.mchandler]

Exactly right Timmy...

Conclusion: Weapons production plants must be viewed as equally wasteful of taxpayer dollars.

Why? Because the government is going to reopen a weapons plant that will violate 69 environmental, health, and safety laws when the weapons could be made somewhere else for the same price without so many safety concerns.

How does that prove that the weapons plant is wasteful with taxpayer money? Where does that suggest that the weapons plant could have produced the weapons for less money?

The evidence is simply irrelevant to the conclusion, which is best expressed in answer choice (C).

Incorrect Answers

(A) is true, but does not express an issue with drawing the argument's conclusion that the weapons plant is wasteful of taxpayer dollars (stay focused on the conclusion).
(B) is not true. The point conceded was that inflated government spending is wasteful of taxpayer dollars, which does not undermine the argument's conclusion.
(D) is not true. We are not given information about which expenditures are necessary.
(E) does not describe an error of reasoning within the argument. The argument does not claim that weapons plants are wasteful because they are similar to research laboratories, but instead offers evidence other than a direct comparison.

It seems that if the government is going to open a weapons plant that violates numerous environmental and health regulations, that this act is wasteful of taxpayer dollars because they (the government) will have to pay (in some fashion) to correct these violations.

If that is line of thought is incorrect, then my next question is irrelevant.

BUT, assuming that knowingly opening a weapons plant that violates all kinds of regulations IS a waste of tax payer dollars, does the fact that the stimulus states that the government is going to "exempt it [the plant] from compliance" absolve the government from wasting tax payer money in this situation?

In other words, if you were to remove the clause which states that the plant is being exempted from complying with the regulations it's violating were removed, would the evidence in the stimulus (about breaking numerous violations) actually "directly address" the issue of wasteful spending?

[maryadkins]

In other words, if you were to remove the clause which states that the plant is being exempted from complying with the regulations it's violating were removed, would the evidence in the stimulus (about breaking numerous violations) actually "directly address" the issue of wasteful spending?

I think it would more directly address it, but it still wouldn't be that direct, because we'd have to assume that the violations are going to lead to more expense for the government. That's actually a pretty big assumption. Maybe the government will just shut down the plant. Maybe it'll just let it operate unsafely. But neither of these we can assume is going to cost more or less money than any other course of action"”we just don't know how much money is being spent here, which makes it impossible to know how much money is being wasted.

[MiriamL498]

I think the issue with this question , and what certainly confused me , was I thought there was a shift in meaning with the word "waste". As first , I thought they were talking about environmental waste and then wasting tax payer dollars. That's what makes the second part of the argument seem not as bad, because the safety issues might be tied to environmental waste, if someone , like me, interprets it that way. But I see why c is correct now. Thank you.

I totally got confused with this as well! If the first half of the first sentence would've been eliminated, this stimulus would have been a little easier to grasp for me. When I read the first half, I too thought that it was referring to environmental waster. It wasn't until the later half of the first sentence, that I figured out that they were talking about "taxpayer dollars." Honestly, I don't think I am sure on what that first half of the first sentence is saying. Is it just emphasizing that the government is wastefully spending money on weapon research labs?