City Budget : Recreation and parks - too much?

Testluv wrote:The author argues that because 88% think an appropriate amount is being allocated to parks and rec, that no more ought to be spent.

But just because one believes that, say, $10 is an appropriate amount doesn't mean that he or she will think $15 is inappropriate. So the 88% who think an appropriate amount is already being allocated may agree that an even greater amount would also be appropriate. And some of the 12% who previously thought funding was inappropriate may find the increased allocation appropriate. Thus, one flaw in the reasoning is choice E.

Note that there is also another glaring flaw in this argument: what people think is appropriate and what is in fact appropriate are two different things. If an answer choice had pointed this out, then this would also be correct. (In fact, this was my first prediction). However, there is always only one demonstrably correct answer among the five answer choices. So, only one of these two flaws can show up in the answer choices.

bhumika.k.shah wrote:A city poll of the community showed that 88 percent of respondents believe that
an appropriate amount of the city budget is being spent on parks and recreation. It
seems, then, that any significant increase in the city budget should be spent on
something other than parks and recreation.
Which one of the following describes a flaw in reasoning in the above argument?
(A) The argument confuses a coincidence with a correlation.
(B) The argument confuses the percentage of the budget spent on parks and
recreation with the amount of money spent on parks and recreation.
(C) The argument does not justify its presumption that what is true of a portion
of the budget also applies to the total budget.
(D) The argument fails to consider that less money could be spent and a significant
percentage of the community would still find that amount to be appropriate.
(E) The argument fails to consider that if more money from the budget were
spent on parks and recreation, then an even larger percentage of the
community might approve of that use of the budget.


Source LSAT

What is the assumption here?

Testluv wrote:The author argues that because 88% think an appropriate amount is being allocated to parks and rec, that no more ought to be spent.

But just because one believes that, say, $10 is an appropriate amount doesn't mean that he or she will think $15 is inappropriate. So the 88% who think an appropriate amount is already being allocated may agree that an even greater amount would also be appropriate. And some of the 12% who previously thought funding was inappropriate may find the increased allocation appropriate. Thus, one flaw in the reasoning is choice E.

Note that there is also another glaring flaw in this argument: what people think is appropriate and what is in fact appropriate are two different things. If an answer choice had pointed this out, then this would also be correct. (In fact, this was my first prediction). However, there is always only one demonstrably correct answer among the five answer choices. So, only one of these two flaws can show up in the answer choices.

Will you pl. explain why choice D can't be ?

Testluv wrote:

Will you pl. explain why choice D can't be ?

The author is arguing that there shouldn't be an increase because a significant fraction of people find currren funding appropriate. He is arguing that there shouldn't be an increase. This does not at all mean that he is overlooking the possibility that even decreasing the amount of funding would be appropriate. That would be an even stronger version of his argument. Just because he didn't press his argument as strongly as he could have doesn't mean that it is flawed for that reason.