Q6 - Commissioner: Budget forecasters project

[megm7267]

"Since there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, our only choice is to decrease expenditures" -- Is this where the answer choice leads to (B)?

[geverett]

This is an argument known as a false dilemma. There is a short wikipedia article on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Anyways, you will often hear people that are trying to convince you to take a course of action (*cough* politicians *cough* *ahem*) that there are 2 courses of action you can take to produce a desired result and failure to choose the course of action that they suggest will result in dire consequences. Always be suspicious of this. A proper way to respond in thinking like a debater would be "Are those really the only 2 options? Might there be other options to achieve the desired result that we have not yet considered?" That is what answer choice B is getting at. The commissioner presents 2 options to achieve the desired results, states that 1 of them is impossible, and as a result concludes that the only way to achieve the desired result is to adopt his plan.

When I was reading this I thought "Maybe someone else has come up with a budget that cuts different expenditures then the plan that you have proposed so in that case there would be more then 1 way to achieve the desired result." That is what answer choice B is getting at. It basically says "confuses the fact that while the commissioners plan is sufficient to achieve the desired result we can't be sure it is absolutely necessary or required (these terms are interchangeable) to achieve the desired result." There could be other plans that could also achieve the same result in a different way.

Let me know if you need any further clarification on anything I've presented.

[megm7267]

This helps a ton - thank you!

[YLAGUNAS]

I understand why B is correct but had difficulty eliminating

(e): takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds

In the second sentance of the stimulus it says "...there is no feasible way to increase available funds..."

Can you please elaborate on this? Is it because (e) is not a flaw committed since the stimulus directly addresses this?


Thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

Answer choice E goes beyond what was stated. There is no feasible way to increase available funds. This is not the same as saying that there is no way. So I would not say that E is even stated in the argument.

What we have in this argument is initially a false dichotomy of....~feasible to increase funds ---> decrease expenditures.

We then have the commissioner give us one plan that decreases expenditures. So, in other words, that plan is sufficient to give us DE.

He concludes that the plan is necessary for DE.

He has confused sufficient and necessary conditions.

[maryadkins]

Great explanations here.

To elaborate further on (E), (E) is a premise booster. We're already told there is no feasible way to increase available funds. This effectively means there's no way to increase available funds. Assumptions (and flaws) are unstated. This just lends more support to/restates the premise.

[timmydoeslsat]

In hindsight, I agree that not feasible = not possible.

[WaltGrace1983]

I didn't choose (A) but it has got me thinking...is (A) wrong because we can not question the budget forecasters? I mean, sure, a forecast is not a certainty but considering it is used somewhat as background information here does this entail that we should not question it?

I am always a little apprehensive when it comes to when we can question "experts" and the like.

[rinagoldfield]

Hey Walt.Grace.1983,

Great question. You’re right that we can’t question the budget forecasts in this argument. They function as part of the argument’s premise, and premises must be taken as givens.
Your job on Identify the Flaw questions is to identify the logical gaps BETWEEN the premise and the conclusion, not question the facts themselves.

[mkd000]

In response to WaltGrace's comment... I thought I'd try supplementing Rina's answer for my own benefit/in case anyone is still wondering about this question. I understand the questioning of the budget forecaster's projection to be irrelevant to the argument for the reason that the argument core is about solving the problem of the revenue shortfall via the plan mentioned. The argument is not about whether or not there is a revenue shortfall. As Rina mentioned, this is accepted as a given.