LSAT 120 – Section 4 – Question 21

LSAT 120 - Section 4 - Question 21

October 2005

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 0:52

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT120 S4 Q21	+LR +Exp	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Conditional Reasoning +CondR Eliminating Options +ElimOpt	A 1% 149 B 93% 162 C 1% 152 D 2% 152 E 2% 156	132 140 148	+Easier	146.628 +SubsectionMedium

Administrator: Because revenue fell by 15 percent this year, the university needs to reduce next year’s budget. This could be accomplished by eliminating faculty positions. It could also be accomplished by reducing faculty salaries. Since we will not eliminate any faculty positions, we must reduce faculty salaries.

Summarize Argument

The administrator concludes that the university must reduce faculty salaries. Why? Because the university must save money. He suggests two ways it could achieve this: reducing faculty salaries or eliminating faculty positions. The university won’t eliminate faculty positions.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of creating a false dichotomy. The administrator presents two options for the university reduce its budget—reducing salaries and firing staff. However, he gives no reason to believe that these are the only two options. Perhaps the university could save money by spending less on student dining or facilities maintenance.
Consequently, we can’t conclude that not choosing one of the administrator’s options means that we have to choose the other one.

presumes, without providing justification, that more money would be saved by reducing faculty salaries than would be saved by eliminating faculty positions

The administrator never compares the savings from reduced salaries vs. layoffs, so this can’t be the flaw.

presumes, without providing justification, that the budget cannot be reduced unless faculty positions are eliminated or faculty salaries are reduced

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of creating a false dichotomy. The administrator commits it by treating elimination of faculty positions or reduction of faculty salaries as the only two options, without justification.

ignores the possibility that, though budget cuts will be needed, they will not need to be as high as 15 percent

The administrator never suggests that 15 percent of the budget needs to be cut: the 15 percent figure was for the decline in revenue.

presumes, without providing justification, that some faculty members will leave their jobs rather than accept a reduced salary

The administrator never presumes anything about faculty members’ decision-making, so this can’t be the flaw.

ignores the possibility that the budget could be reduced by eliminating some faculty positions and reducing the remaining faculty members’ salaries

The administrator directly states that no faculty positions will be eliminated, so ignoring this option is not a flaw.

LSAT 120 – Section 4 – Question 21

LSAT 120 - Section 4 - Question 21

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 120 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel