Q4 - The United States government

[magnusgan]

Correct answer choice (E) states that state expenditures are compared with federal expenditures, however there is nothing known about state expenditures. We are only told that "the federal expenditures... have been less than the allocations of some individual states."

How can we equate actual state expenditures with state allocations for expenditures???


I chose (B) because while imperfect, it was the next best answer... That whole allocation thing caused me to quite reluctantly cross (E) out

[sumukh09]

How can we equate actual state expenditures with state allocations for expenditures???

They're actually equivalent concepts so the author is in fact comparing state expenditures to federal expenditures in his argument. State allocations for expenditures just means the different amounts expended by individual states.

[magnusgan]

Ok I must say I don't quite agree... I understood state allocations for expenditures to mean the allocated budget for expenditures rather than actual expenditures reported by state...

To summarize,

Me:
allocations = budget or potential spend

You:
allocations = actual spend attributed to the state

What would help us choose one meaning over the other?

[sumukh09]

Even though it's not explicitly stated that they actually spend the amount allocated for the particular state, we can assume that they do given the context of the argument.

[rinagoldfield]

Great conversation! Magnusgan, you’re right that there’s a subtle shift from "state allocations" to "state expenditures." But I basically agree with Sumokh here:

Even though it's not explicitly stated that they actually spend the amount allocated for the particular state, we can assume that they do given the context of the argument.

The question asks how the author proceeds with her argument. It’s important to think about the argument as a whole for this question type. The author concludes that federal expenditures on soil conservation are "ridiculously low." Why? Because the federal government spends even less on conservation than individual states allocate for conservation.

The implication here is that the federal government spends less than states do. Magnusgan, you’re right that this is implied rather than explicitly stated, but the federal-state comparison constitutes the crux of the author’s argument.

We can also approach this problem using a process of elimination:

(A) is out of scope. There’s no detailed statistical analysis.
(B) is unsupported. The author offers specific evidence about soil erosion in "many states" but never makes a generalization about "all states."
(C) is contradicted by the background information in the argument. The author explicitly states that the US govt generally tries to protect valuable natural resources.
(D) what???? Slanted language? I don’t even know what that means in this context. Eliminate it.

(E), while imperfect, is the best answer choice.

Does that make sense?

[magnusgan]

If I had to solve this through process of elimination (which I did), I would have eliminated all answer choices.

I still find it very difficult to equate state expeditures with state allocations. The author only tells us that federal expenditures are really low, so low that they are below allocations to some states. But that doesn't tell us anything about how the states are spending their allocations!

It's like saying I spend $300 on groceries everyday, and that's less (or more, or the same - irrelevant to the argument) than what a rich lawyer sets aside for grocery shopping in a day (or month, or week, or year!)

Answer choice (E): I compared my grocery expenditures with a lawyer's grocery expenditures. Valid? No way.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I still find it very difficult to equate state expeditures with state allocations. The author only tells us that federal expenditures are really low, so low that they are below allocations to some states. But that doesn't tell us anything about how the states are spending their allocations!

It's not "allocations to some states" but rather "state allocations" to the problem of soil erosion. i think you read the word "of" as the word "to."

Hope that helps!

[magnusgan]

Hey Matt, thanks for chiming in. Does usage of "to" or "of," in the context of the last statement of the stimulus, alter one's understanding of the term "allocations?"

"Total federal expenditures for soil programs have been less than the allocations of some individual states"