Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S1 · Q24 Supervisor: Our next budget proposal

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

Supervisor: Our next budget proposal will probably be approved, because normally about half of all budget proposals that the vice president considers are approved, and our last five budget proposals have all been turned down.

Conclusion

Our next budget proposal will probably be approved.

Evidence (because / and)

Normally about half of all budget proposals that the VP considers are approved, and our last five budget proposals have all been turned down.

Evaluate

Given that ... the VP normally approves about half of these and has turned down the previous five,

How can we argue that ... our next budget proposal won't be approved?

Well, we could maybe say these aren't normal times.

Maybe the VP is in a really weird place with her life / this job right now, and either for strategic or emotional reasons she's going to keep turning stuff down.

Maybe the VP, prior to the last five she turned down, has approved the previous ten (suggesting that if the average rate of approval is 50%, then getting another five proposals rejected could still be in line with that approval rate).

In a sense this is sort of like Gambler's Fallacy -- the idea that . That's not how probability or averages work. The next flip of the coin still is a 50/50 chance.

Goal

The author is assuming that these are normal times, that prior to this streak of rejecting 5 proposals the VP was not on a long streak of approving proposals, that the next budget proposal does not contain some provision the VP hates, that the next proposal is meaningfully different from the previous five, and so forth. It's hard to predict one specific answer here.

The correct answer, when negated, should sound like a big objection to this argument and allow us to argue that, .

24.

The supervisor's reasoning is flawed because it presumes, without giving warrant, that

the last five budget proposals’
Too Strong: Guarantees / Next Five
The author is only talking about the next one, and she isn't saying its approval is guaranteed, just that its approval is likely ("probably be approved").
19% picked this
the vice president is required
Out of Scope: Required To Approve
The author just said that "normally about half are approved". There's no way we can take that to mean "it is required that at least half are approved".
10% picked this
Correct
having the last five budget
Why this is right
This is stating the Gambler's Fallacy type of thinking. Suppose the only premise we had was "normally about half of all budget proposals are approved". How should we estimate the probability that this next budget proposal will be approved? We'd say, "Okay, all other things being equal, it's got around a 50% chance of being approved". We wouldn't say "it will probably be approved, because that would go against the idea that normally only about half of them are actually approved." The author adds in another premise, "Yes, but --- the previous five have been turned down, thus the next one probably will be approved." So the author is clearly thinking that this streak of rejections moves the probability from where it would be by default (around 50%) to the level of probably (greater than 50%). If we negate this answer it becomes an objection: "Yo, author -- whether the last five proposals were approved or rejected has no effect on the likelihood that the next one will be approved or rejected, therefore the probability is around 50%, not probable"
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
70% picked this
the majority of the last
Out of Scope: Deserved
The author isn't offering any thoughts on whether the last five proposals were correctly or incorrectly turned down. If we negated this answer and said, "Most of the last five did not deserve to be turned down", that might even strengthen the author, because he could argue that the VP has even more of an impetus to approve this next proposal, after having undeservedly rejected some previous ones.
1% picked this
the likelihood that a budget
Out Of Scope
Out Of Scope: Amount Of Money Requested The argument doesn't discuss anything about how much money is requested in this proposal vs. another one, so the author hasn't committed to any notions about a relationship between amount requested and likelihood of approval.
0% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill

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