The administrative budget in the Central Valley school district is pro

Hi desertEagle, I agree with B as the answer to this question, however, I have a different reasoning.

The question asks us to identify a criticism, a statement that essentially says that the budegting policy in discussion is not an economically sound method for the aforesaid school district.

What I think is that, the problem is the administrative budget being directly proportional to the revenue numbers. It wouldn't be a problem if the revenue numbers were/are increasing and the administrative budget too increased alongwith it, however given the fact that revenue numbers HAVE NOT increased over the past 10 years I can safely assume that my administrative budget too has not seen an increase in the last 10 years, and this is problematic, and calls into question the budgeting policy, and acts as a criticism.

If the revenue numbers have not increased, you have still somehow got to increase the administrative budget some way to keep up with the increasing costs, and that too when you're talking about a 10 year period.

Imagine if property taxation fetched me $1000 in the year 2000 and I gave you a $100 to work out your administrative expenses, you would still be able to fairly manage, but imagine it's the year 2010, and the property taxation still fetches $1000, would you be happy with the $100 budget to work out your administrative expenses? I assume not. Your costs would have dramatically shot in those 10 years and you would ask me to give you an increased budget, and arrange for that money some way or the other, whether I borrow that money on a loan or I cut budgets on other things, I've got to figure out a way, because as it stands it's a bad budgeting policy to still make you work with those $100.

What do you think? Does this sound sensible? Let me know!

Posted from my mobile device

please explain option A as correct answer choice

B is definitely not a valid weakener. The argument is simply delineating how the district has chosen to respond to any increases in the tax base. If there are no increases, then the plan doesn't happen. We can't assume that no other actions would be taken in response to other funding sources, and we certainly can't assume that the budget needs to be increased at all. Sure, that is typically the case in real life, but it's not a given fact here. For all we know, the district could afford to decrease its budget each year. We simply know nothing about this.

As for answer choice A, ashpriya, I think Ian Stewart covered it fairly well above. The plan relies on the idea that funds were allocated correctly in the first place. If they weren't, then a simple proportional increase might not be the best plan. For instance, imagine that I built a study plan in which I spent 20 hours a week studying quant and 1 hour a week studying verbal. Then if my free time increased by 5%, I would keep the proportion, studying quant for 21 hours and verbal for 1 hour and 3 minutes. This would be a perfect proportional increase, but it might be a bad plan. I should probably spend more time on verbal than that, so building on my previous plan is a bad idea!

I think part of the problem here is that A is not clearly worded. Especially in the context of a budget question, "pay for" sounds like "spend money on." Also, it's weird to use "might" in a weaken answer. We're looking for something that, if true, were a problem. The assumption is that the funds were well allocated in the first place, so we want to negate that. The answer should be worded more like this: "The original allocation of funds in the district's budget did not reflect useful priorities for the school."

I am surprised that IanStewart did not call attention to the thinly veiled attempt by the question creator(s) to pattern the above question after this old official question from decades ago. Compare the phrasing in a few spots. The answer choices fit the same basic mold, one by one.



I am a bit surprised that Veritas Prep would not do a better job with content creation. This sort of hackjob is more prevalent among much less reputable companies.

- Andrew

I would have mentioned it had I remembered that question. it looks familiar, but it's been a long time since I've seen it. Nice catch!

Interesting, AndrewN. I didn't remember that question either, but this is a good example of how things go wrong when folks write questions by copying and pasting. I didn't like the wording of A, so I was initially surprised to see exactly the same wording in the original. However, in the original, the vague wording ("might continue") is justified, since the text is talking about a general practice across an entire sector of the economy, rather than the annual budget of one specific school district. This is why I want to talk about official questions or original 3rd party questions. Rewrites just muddy the waters,.

IanStewart—In another life, I wanted to be a chess grandmaster, and pattern recognition is a must (even for a present-day patzer like me). My new aspiration is to become the bane of plagiarizing question-writers. I would like to think that all the effort that goes into disguising an official question could be put to better use creating something original. Even if the first efforts were rudimentary, as some of my own have been, a peer-review process (through forums such as this) could make third-party questions so much better.

And, of course, your earlier analysis of the imposter question was spot on. You could practically copy and paste it into the discussion on the official question and watch the kudos roll in.


A keen analysis of the subtleties of context, DmitryFarber, one that I would not have spent enough time to work out on my own. I echo your sentiments on discussing official or original questions, even if I sometimes lay into the latter. (Perhaps we all have an inner Gordon Ramsay. Still, sometimes I may not strike the right balance between candidness and tact.)

Cheers.

- Andrew

My inputs:

The administrative budget in the Central Valley school district is proportional to the value of the valley’s property tax base, the chief source of funding for the school district. As revenue from property taxes increases, each budget segment of the school district is increased proportionately.

Which of the following statements, if true, is the best basis for a criticism of the Central Valley’s budgeting policy as an economically sound budgeting method for school districts?

(A) The school district might continue to pay for past inefficient allocation of funds- Since we know that budget is proportional to property tax base, hence for past inefficient allocation of funds, spending from the current budget will decrease the budget, hence not economically favourable for school district. This seems logical.
(B) The revenue from property taxes has remained relatively unchanged for the last decade- This means the budget allocation is constant hence no effect on budget allocation. Eliminate.
(C) Student performance is affected by fluctuations in the overall school district budget- This is out of the context as we are talking about valley's budget only.
(D) Many Central Valley taxpayers have complained about the high property tax rates in the area- Complain can or cannot affect budget. Hence eliminate.
(E) The current budgeting system has little impact on whether parents decide to take their children to non-district funded classes- This means that still children can choose the valley district school equally as other schools, hence no effect on school budget. Eliminate.

Hence A is the answer

Posted from my mobile device