Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 16 Jan 2017, 05:21

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 701
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 413 [0], given: 0

Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2008, 01:09
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

53% (02:13) correct 47% (01:14) wrong based on 886 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall of a billion dollars in the coming fiscal year. Since there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, our only choice is to decrease expenditures. The plan before you outlines feasible cuts that would yield savings of a billion dollars over the coming fiscal year. We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan.

This reasoning in the commissioner's argument is flawed because this argument

(A) relies on information that is far from certain
(B) confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution
(C) inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts
(D) inappropriately employs language that is vague
(E) takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L

If you have any questions
New!
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1473
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 173 [4] , given: 13

### Show Tags

02 Aug 2010, 07:36
4
KUDOS
E is something which is explicitly stated in the passage - the commissioner says there is no way to increase available funds. The question asks us to find a flaw in this reasoning. If we choose E - we are simply restating the commissoner's argument. B points the flaw by highlighting where the problem is.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1153
Location: United States
Followers: 258

Kudos [?]: 2859 [4] , given: 123

Re: Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2013, 10:40
4
KUDOS
I have to say this question's structure is really good and is NOT easy as some one says. I see many debates between B and E. I'm not a pro-CR analyst, but I picked the correct answer B by applying exactly CR-bible chapter 10 - Method of Reasoning question.

A. Analysis:

1. Type of question: Method of Reasoning - Flaw in the reasoning question.

2. What a correct answer looks like: "To identify the right answer choice, carefully consider the reasoning used in the stimulus. The correct answer will identify the error in the author's reasoning and then describe that error in general terms. Beware of answers that describe a portion of the stimulus but fail to identify the error in the reasoning" - Power Score CR Bible, page 214.

- Haft right, haft wrong answers.
- Answers that only describe a portion of stimulus, but not show a reasoning.

B. Apply:

Structure: Revenue shortfall; no way to increase funds; --> have to cut expenditures. --> can solve the problem - revenue shortfall.

Flaw: cut expenditure does not mean the company can solve the real problem - revenue shortfall. The key problem needed to be solved here is how to prevent revenue shortfall, not how to prevent the profit decline.

A, C and D are out right away because they are out of scope.
E is also wrong, it only repeats a portion of stimulus, but it doesn't show a flaw. (favorite trap of GMAC)
B is correct, it states that the argument confuses between an adequate solution (cut expenditure) and a required solution (Prevent revenue shortfall).

Hope it's clear now.

_______________________
Please kudo if my post helps!
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 64
WE 1: Deloitte 3 yrs
WE 2: Prok going on
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [2] , given: 2

### Show Tags

13 May 2011, 02:45
2
KUDOS
prasannar wrote:
Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall of a billion dollars in the coming fiscal year. Since there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, our only choice is to decrease expenditures. The plan before you outlines feasible cuts that would yield savings of a billion dollars over the coming fiscal year. We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan.

This reasoning in the commissioner's argument is flawed because this argument

(A) relies on information that is far from certain
(B) confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution
(C) inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts
(D) inappropriately employs language that is vague
(E) takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds

Since there is no feasible way to increase the available funds,

SO it is stated that there is no feasible way to increase available funds, choice E is not right. We cannot select what is already stated, and so not a flaw.

our only choice is to decrease expenditures. The plan before you outlines feasible cuts that would yield savings of a billion dollars

So the only way is to decrease expenditures. There can be various plans to decrease expenditure and one of them (adequate plan) was presented by him.

We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan.

Here is the problem, flaw is in this sentence. This plan is not the only plan, there can be many other plans that can lead to a saving of billion dollar. SO B is correct.
_________________

Akhil Mittal

I have not failed. I've just found 10000 ways that won't work. Thomas A. Edison

If my post was helpful to you then encourage me by your kudos

Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 99
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 11 [1] , given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2008, 18:32
1
KUDOS
I say B.
_________________

MBA Blog: University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management- http://unconventionalapplicant.blogspot.com/

CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2989
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 579 [1] , given: 210

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2008, 21:30
1
KUDOS
hahah showdown time B vs E ... cmon prasanna we need the OA.
Intern
Joined: 30 May 2009
Posts: 28
Schools: Haas, Darden, Booth, LBS, Insead and IMD
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [1] , given: 1

### Show Tags

06 Jun 2009, 04:30
1
KUDOS
terp26 wrote:
im joining th B gang

The problem or flaw with the argument is that he is saying

We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan.

So he is ruling out every other option. Why though? What in the argument states that another plan couldn't work either? Why is his plan the only one to solve the problem?
What if there were other ways to reduce expenditures in another plan?

Therefore in B, he is confusing what could be an adequate solution to a required solution (ONLY is key here)

Sound reasoning. I used the same.
Intern
Joined: 05 Jan 2010
Posts: 22
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [1] , given: 4

### Show Tags

26 Mar 2010, 07:38
1
KUDOS
Is this really how this passage is written in the OG? Terrible! I had to read it multiple times to figure out what was being said and who was being addressed. I can't think rule of a grammar rule that allows you to place the speaker in front of a passage with a colon and then followup it up with a string of dialogue that does not have quotations or indicators of who the speaker is addressing; except maybe in a script.

that aside, I picked B
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2011
Posts: 452
Location: United States (DC)
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V45
GPA: 3.37
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 183 [1] , given: 5

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2011, 04:36
1
KUDOS
jingy77 wrote:
E is the only one that makes sense to me. They are ruling out all factors that there can be anyway to increase funds. I have no idea though.

E attacks one of the premises that the argument is based on.

However, the question asks you to point out a flaw in the REASONING within the argument. In questions where you're asked to evaluate the reasoning of an argument, the validity of the premise is not relevant.
CEO
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2989
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 579 [0], given: 210

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2008, 05:02
B for me. Will explain if this is the OA.
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 213
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2008, 10:04
E is the only one that makes sense to me. They are ruling out all factors that there can be anyway to increase funds. I have no idea though.
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 457
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 194 [0], given: 6

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2008, 10:45
B for me
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 213
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2008, 13:18
OA prassanar?
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1926
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 1009 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2008, 21:10
jingy77 wrote:
E is the only one that makes sense to me. They are ruling out all factors that there can be anyway to increase funds. I have no idea though.

Agree with you, E

Because the argument "E) takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds", "This reasoning in the commissioner's argument is flawed". We do not must find the flaw of the argument.
_________________
VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1459
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 255 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2008, 21:17
i'm with the B gang
Intern
Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2008, 21:18
E
VP
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1443
Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 12

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2008, 07:36
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
im joining th B gang

The problem or flaw with the argument is that he is saying

We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan.

So he is ruling out every other option. Why though? What in the argument states that another plan couldn't work either? Why is his plan the only one to solve the problem?
What if there were other ways to reduce expenditures in another plan?

Therefore in B, he is confusing what could be an adequate solution to a required solution (ONLY is key here)
Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
Posts: 134
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2008, 08:33
OA is B - found on another thread.
BSchool Forum Moderator
Joined: 01 Oct 2009
Posts: 602
GMAT 1: 530 Q47 V17
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
Followers: 37

Kudos [?]: 306 [0], given: 410

### Show Tags

26 Mar 2010, 04:14
good explanation terp
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 267
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

26 Mar 2010, 05:50
prasannar wrote:
Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall of a billion dollars in the coming fiscal year. Since there is no feasible way to increase the available funds, our only choice is to decrease expenditures. The plan before you outlines feasible cuts that would yield savings of a billion dollars over the coming fiscal year. We will be able to solve the problem we face, therefore, only if we adopt this plan.
This reasoning in the commissioner's argument is flawed because this argument
(A) relies on information that is far from certain
(B) confuses being an adequate solution with being a required solution
(C) inappropriately relies on the opinions of experts
(D) inappropriately employs language that is vague
(E) takes for granted that there is no way to increase available funds
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
B

Confusing. I would still go with E.
Re: CR 30: Commisioner   [#permalink] 26 Mar 2010, 05:50

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 47 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Springfield Fire Commissioner: 3 11 Dec 2015, 20:06
25 Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game 18 22 Dec 2009, 12:17
Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game 3 15 Jun 2007, 13:02
1 CR - weather forecast 7 18 Mar 2007, 20:22
Commissioner: Budget forecasters project a revenue shortfall 8 16 Mar 2007, 07:58
Display posts from previous: Sort by