BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

City Budget : Recreation and parks - too much?

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 941
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:28 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

City Budget : Recreation and parks - too much?

by bhumika.k.shah » Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:32 am
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?
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:11 am
Thanked: 1 times

by suryapal » Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:43 am
answer : D ?????????
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 941
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:28 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

by bhumika.k.shah » Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:46 am
OA E
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:11 am
Thanked: 1 times

by suryapal » Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:49 am
aree yaaar ...... :(

any explanation... ???
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 941
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:28 am
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members

by bhumika.k.shah » Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:51 am
[spoiler]The best answer is E. This is a flaw question. Answer choice E correctly points
out that the author of the argument is assuming that the proportion of city residents
who approve of the level of funding for parks and recreation cannot be raised
above 88 percent. While such an outcome is not guaranteed simply by spending
more public money on parks and recreation, it is at least a plausible, possible
outcome that prevents reaching the argument's conclusion, that any new money
should be spent on some other purpose, without more evidence. The other answer
choices describe common argument flaws that are simply not relevant to the stimulus
argument.[/spoiler]

Even i dint get it. Hence posted it here.

It seems to give a weird explanation only :P
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:11 am
Thanked: 1 times

by suryapal » Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:53 am
:)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:53 am
Location: Chennai,India
Thanked: 3 times

by paddle_sweep » Mon Apr 19, 2010 12:33 am
I thought that the answer was 'B'. Cannot understand as to how it could be 'E'?
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:46 pm
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.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:53 am
Location: Chennai,India
Thanked: 3 times

by paddle_sweep » Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:53 pm
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.
Thanks for the explanation.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:3 members

by diebeatsthegmat » Sat Jun 12, 2010 12:45 am
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?
'
i very hate lsat questions
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 3:18 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by ansumania » Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:57 am
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 ?
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Mon Jun 14, 2010 9:44 pm
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.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 10:59 am
Thanked: 4 times

by missionGMAT007 » Tue Jun 15, 2010 5:56 am
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.
Thanks for your explanation.
Can you please let us what is wrong with D?
[/spoiler]
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1