Logical reasoning PrepTest 121 · Section 1 · Question 10

Incorrect. This answer assigns a specific number to the increase in aid, but what matters to the argument is whether this increase went to need-based aid. Since it doesn't address that, it doesn't have an effect on the argument.

Incorrect. Without knowing more about how much of an increase in dollars each of these represents, it's impossible to know how they relate. A 5% increase in faculty salaries could directly match the amount raised by a 6% increase in tuition, or the numbers could be wildly off based on what those two numbers were last year.

Incorrect. Increasing in line with the national average doesn't speak to how much money would actually need to be raised to cover those salaries, and if it led to the tuition hike. And it's noted that need-based aid didn't increase in the school. This answer doesn't add anything that has an impact on the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Administration: Tuition increases are due to faculty salaries and need-based aid going up.

Rebuttal:
(1) Faculty salaries are a small portion of the overall budget
(2) Only academic scholarship (not need-based) have gone up
Conclusion - The administration is lying

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has an opposing point that the author rebuts. That opposing point is from the university's administration, which blamed the increase in tuition on two things: faculty salaries, and an increase in need-based aid.

To rebut this argument, the author brings up details arguing against each.

To argue against an increase in faculty salaries driving the increase in tuition, she cites the relatively small proportion of the overall budget that's dedicated to this. Does that undermine the administration's argument? Maybe to a certain extent, but it's certainly possible that a drastic increase to teachers salaries—even if it's small beans compared to the overall budget—could need to be paid from increased tuition. Ruling this out could strengthen the argument.

To argue against an increase in need-based aid driving the increase in tuition, she cites that the only "significant" (i.e., big enough to make a difference) scholarship increases are in non-need-based aid (academic scholarships). If that's the case, that's a pretty effective counter to the claim—there just weren't significant enough increases in need-based aid to matter here.

Outside of the direct counters to the points raised by the administration, it's also possible to strengthen the argument here with another common means of attacking an argument that proposes one explanation for a phenomenon—alternatives. Any answer that suggests the tuition increase was driven by something other than faculty salaries or need-based aid will also serve to strengthen the rebuttal of the administration's claims.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice establishes that there were significant increases in money spent on certain areas other than the ones claimed to be the driving force behind the tuition hikes by the administration. If these "substantial" areas saw an increase in the amount of money budgeted for them, then a conclusion that these are the real forces behind the tuition hike is strengthened, and the administration's claims are weakened. Since we're trying to strengthen a claim that the administration's claims are not believable, this answer does so by weakening those opposing claims.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument goes point-by-point, analyze it point-by-point! Here, the author rebutted two claims individually, so we needed to consider each. Often on the LSAT, one will be valid and the other won't be, but it's just as common that both aren't valid. In the former case, you can limit what you're looking for in the answer choices; in the latter, you can anticipate two separate answers and thus be less likely to avoid missing the correct one.

Incorrect. The tuition fees would take these projections and all cost increases into account, so it doesn't provide any information about what cost increases factored into the calculations in a way that resulted in the tuition increase.