PrepTest 94+, Section 4, Question 13
If the natural history museum stays within this year's budget, it will be unable to stay within next year's budget, for renovating next year will make the museum's expenditures exceed next year's very tight budget. After all, the museum will have to renovate next year if it does not do so this year, because work from previous renovations is deteriorating rapidly.
If the natural history museum stays within this year's budget, it will be unable to stay within next year's budget, for renovating next year will make the museum's expenditures exceed next year's very tight budget. After all, the museum will have to renovate next year if it does not do so this year, because work from previous renovations is deteriorating rapidly.
If the natural history museum stays within this year's budget, it will be unable to stay within next year's budget, for renovating next year will make the museum's expenditures exceed next year's very tight budget. After all, the museum will have to renovate next year if it does not do so this year, because work from previous renovations is deteriorating rapidly.
If the natural history museum stays within this year's budget, it will be unable to stay within next year's budget, for renovating next year will make the museum's expenditures exceed next year's very tight budget. After all, the museum will have to renovate next year if it does not do so this year, because work from previous renovations is deteriorating rapidly.
The argument's conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?
The museum will stay within this year's budget.
This year's budget is less than next year's budget.
The museum will not renovate next year.
The museum will exceed this year's budget if it renovates this year.
The museum will stay within this year's budget if it does not renovate this year.
Explanations
This passage is conditional soup. Let's make sense of all these if-then statements.
(1) Within budget this year → exceed budget next year (the conclusion)
(2) Renovate next year → exceed budget next year
(3) If we don't renovate this year → we renovate next year (notice, no renovating this year is now sufficient to exceed next year's budget).
We're asked for a sufficient assumption. Which means we have to prove the idea that if we're within budget this year, then we'll exceed the budget next year—or, its contrapositive: if we're on budget next year, then we exceeded budget this year.
These are 100% predictable. Do the work upfront and don't let answer choices boss you around.
We need, "If we're within budget this year, then we didn't renovate this year," (or its contrapositive). This connects the don't between budgets and renovations—it would mean, if we hit budget, then we didn't renovate now, so we'll have to renovate later, which means we'll exceed budget.
Nope. Staying within this year's budget guarantees we don't hit next year's in the abstract, but it's the conclusion we're trying to prove. We need something that ties the other conditionals to the conclusion.
No way. I have no way of proving this. Didn't read? Don't pick.
No. This is only sufficient to guarantee that we renovate this year. We aren't explicitly told what happens when we renovate this year other than we don't have to renovate next year.
Bingo. Instead of what we predicted (within budget this year → don't renovate this year) we got its contrapositive (renovate this year → exceed budget this year). These are logically equivalent statements. This is the answer.
Nah. This would guarantee that we'd renovate next year, which exceeds budget, but that doesn't guarantee the conclusion that being on budget this year forces us to exceed budget next year. This is wrong because we'd have to treat the conclusion as true to assume it guarantees the conclusion, and that would be circular reasoning.
0 Comments