Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S1 · Q12 A nationwide poll of students

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

A nationwide poll of students, parents, and teachers showed that over 90 percent believe that an appropriate percentage of their school’s budget is being spent on student counseling programs.

Conclusion

If we're gonna add to the school budget, we should spend money on something besides student counseling programs.

Evidence

A huge poll of students, parents, and teachers show that over 90% of them think an appropriate percentage of the budget is being spent on student counseling.

Evaluate

Given the poll, wow could we argue that if we add money to the school budget, we should spend more money on student counseling?

Our first reaction could just be, But it is a nationwide poll of students / parents / teachers, so LSAT is giving us no reason to doubt the poll. There must be some other wiggle room.

They're shifting from talking about "an appropriate percentage" in the evidence (in the poll) to the idea of "an increased amount" in the conclusion. So we should think about this % vs. # distinction.

Say the budget is currently $100k, and 1% of it goes to student counseling ($1,000). In the poll, over 90% said .

The poll doesn't comment on whether $1,000 is an appropriate amount to allocate.

If we increased the budget by $50k, and now the budget is currently $150k, then the $1000 we're giving to student counseling will only 0.67% of the budget.

We actually would be failing to comply with the poll if we didn't spend more money on student counseling, because we would have gone from the 1% of budget that they approve of to a lower 0.67% that they might not approve of.

Goal

Look for an answer that speaks to the percentage vs. amount confusion, or that points out that if we add new money to the budget, then the people in this poll would want X% of that new money (the appropriate percentage they agree on) to go to student counseling.

12.

Which one of the following describes a flaw in the reasoning of the argument above?

  1. The argument confuses a mere

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the famous Correlation vs. Causality distinction, but this argument is messing up the Percentage vs. Amount distinction. There is no correlation described nor any causality in the conclusion.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    The argument confuses the percentage

    Why this is right

    The author thinks that "if we add new money to the budget, we shouldn't give any to student counseling, because over 90% think that an appropriate amount is already going to student counseling." But the poll says that an appropriate percentage is going to student counseling. Hence, if people approve of X% of the budget going to student counseling, then they would want for X% of any additional budget funding to go to student counseling.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    74% picked this

  3. The argument fails to justify

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the famous Part vs. Whole distinction, but this argument is messing up the Percentage vs. Amount distinction. This would match had the author's argument sounded like, "Since over 90% approve of the % we spend on student counseling, it must be that over 90% approve of the budget overall."

    11% picked this

  4. The argument fails to consider

    Doesn't Weaken

    "Fails to consider" answers only work if they give us a possible objection to the argument. Saying that we could save money by training students as peer counselors actually goes with the author's conclusion that we shouldn't spend more money on student counseling.

    1% picked this

  5. The argument fails to consider

    Doesn't Fail to Consider

    It seems like the author is specifically considering that, since she's being cautious about how any new money would get spent (considering opportunity cost, implicitly). Either way, this idea doesn't weaken the the argument. The author would agree to this idea, and reiterate her faulty logic that "right, and since 90% approve of [what we're spending] on student counseling currently, we shouldn't squander precious money by giving counseling more, when that limits our ability to give it to other programs."

    13% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free