Logical reasoning PrepTest 130 · Section 1 · Question 3

Incorrect. The argument is over only the Planning Department, so other departments are out of scope.

Incorrect. Outside of the duties that it performs, the specifics of the spending of the Planning Department are out of scope. If the duties are the same, it doesn't matter if the Department has shifted spending away from salaries/overtime or towards it.

Incorrect. The opposing point is that the Planning Department "now" spends 5x what it did in 2001, so any data points in between are irrelevant.

Incorrect. The opposing point compares the absolute amount of spending by the Planning Department, so adjusting for inflation is out of scope. The conclusion or rebuttal would specifically have to bring that inflation in in order to make it in scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Premise: The Planning Department budget went up 5x.
Opposing point: The Department spends 5x as much money to do the same stuff.
Conclusion: The opposing point isn't justified.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever the conclusion of an argument is an opinion of an opposing point, your first step should be to distinguish if the conclusion is that the opposing point is wrong (and thus the opposite is true), or that the opposing point hasn't proven its conclusion/is invalid (in which case the author doesn't have a given opinion on whether the opposing point is true or false, just that it's unproven).

In this case, in stating that the opposing point is "not justif[ied]," the Letter commits to the opposing point not having proven its point, not being wrong. We need to figure out a consideration that the opposing point hasn't addressed!

That point does establish something about the Planning Department's budget, and it did go up over 5x. However, the other part of that opposing point is that the Department is spending 5x as much "to perform the same duties." The argument never discusses those duties, however, so the opposing point is relying on those duties not having changed. An answer that brings up any change to duties would strengthen the argument that the editorial is unjustified.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the duties of the Planning Department have been expanded since 2001. If that's the case, then it's unjustified to say that the Planning Department is performing the same duties as in 2001, undermining the opposing point and thus strengthening the conclusion that that point is unjustified.

Key Takeaway:
When the main point of an argument is an opinion on an opposing point, make sure you distinguish whether that opinion is that the opposing point is wrong or unjustified. It's an important difference in many questions.