PrepTest 109

Incorrect. The Supervisor's conclusion is about only the next budget proposal, not the next five, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The Supervisor assumes that the past trend of approval rates is still applicable, but there's no indication that that trend was due to the VP being required to approve half of all requests. (If that were the case, someone would probably just submit a bunch of ridiculous budget requests knowing that one would eventually need to be approved!)

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors In Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
About half of all budget proposals are approved, and the last five were rejected, so the next will probably be approved.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever an argument makes a prediction about what will happen in the future based on what has happened in the past, the argument is assuming that past trends will continue into the future. However, that's not a great assumption, as things change, and past trends stop being followed.

Here, the Supervisor is relying on the past trend that most budget proposals are approved to predict that lucky number 6 will probably be approved after 5 were rejected. But this case could be different and buck that old trend. Maybe the person putting the proposals together now is bad at it, or the company's economic situation has changed. There are any number of reasons that the past rate of approval could be different now, especially in a single case.

The question stem asks us to find an answer that the argument "presumes without giving warrant" which is a fancy way of asking us to find the argument's assumption. So let's find an answer stating that the Supervisor assumes that the past trend of budget approval will apply to this budget.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the Gambler's Fallacy in the stimulus. Past trends don't affect the likelihood of an outcome in a given case. Just because you've flipped heads the last 5 times doesn't mean you're more likely to flip tails next!

Key Takeaway:
Whenever the conclusion of an argument is a prediction, consider whether it's using what has been true to draw a conclusion about what will be true. While the past can provide some evidence for what might happen, it can't prove what will or is likely to happen without a premise that ties the past into the future (e.g., by establishing that no relevant factors have changed).

Incorrect. If anything, the assumption is that budgetary approval is a purely chance—based thing, with about half being approved. As such, the argument doesn't assume anything about there being good reason for any of the rejections. This answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't discuss anything about what's in the budget requests, so this answer is out of scope.