PrepTest 109

Incorrect. There's no correlation or causation in the stimulus, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Survey — 90% of students/parents/teachers think the right percentage is being spent on student counseling
Conclusion — If schools get more money, it shouldn't go to these programs

Answer Anticipation:
Quite a few elements of this stimulus suggest specific flaws, so we should get working through them!

First, the argument uses a survey as its primary support. That suggests a sampling flaw, and a correlation/causation flaw. For the sampling flaw, it does seem as if the sample is large and representative, but it doesn't establish that the group questioned is the right group to ask about the conclusion. It might be school administrators who are best able to answer this question. That's a bit of a sampling flaw, a bit of an appeal to an inappropriate authority flaw. For the correlation/causation flaw, there's no causality in the conclusion (or a causal assumption), so we can skip over that.

Second, the survey brings up what this group "believe[s]" but that belief isn't enough to determine the reality of the situation. Even if it's believed that an appropriate percentage of money is being spent on these programs, that doesn't mean that percentage is appropriate. This overlaps a bit with the appeal to an inappropriate authority flaw seen in the last paragraph.

Finally, the argument discusses the "percentage" of the budget that goes to these programs. When the stimulus discusses a percentage check to see if it then shifts to discussing an amount. Here it does—the conclusion is that an increase in the school's budget shouldn't be spent on these programs. However the view in the premises is that the "percentage" of money spent on these programs is appropriate. If the budget goes up but the amount of money doesn't then the percentage would go down and the parents/teachers/students might object.

Let's look for an answer that brings up a sampling appeal to inappropriate authority perception vs. reality or percent vs. amount flaw! Yep that's a lot.

Answer Explanation:
This answer speaks to the percent vs. amount flaw in the stimulus. The survey establishes that a certain group believes an appropriate percentage is being spent on counseling programs. It then concludes that more money shouldn't be spent on the programs even if the budget increases—a determination about the amount of money spent.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments aren't limited to having a single flaw. However when an argument does have multiple flaws only one will show up as the correct answer. You'll never have to determine which flaw is "more important" or "bigger"—if you think two answers describe a flaw in the reasoning you're wrong about one of them.

Incorrect. While the argument does discuss an element of the budget and the budget as a whole, it doesn't treat what is true of the counseling budget as being true of the overall budget. If anything, it treats what is true of the overall budget as not being true of the counseling budget—since the former can go up without the latter doing so.

Incorrect. Saving money is out of scope of the argument.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't discuss using money for other purposes. It also discusses a general increase in the budget not going to a specific area.