It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 16:05

### 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
Manager
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 197

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2007, 08:58
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

1.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 commissionerâ€™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
_________________

cool

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 212

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2007, 19:48
jet1445 wrote:
1.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 commissionerâ€™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

What a good question. vote B finally.

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 165

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2007, 03:48
Good Q.

Between B and E, choose B.

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 28

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Mar 2007, 13:51
i actually disagree that this is a good question. (B) sounds like the answer but i would also agree with someone who argued for (D) since the use of the word "feasible" in this situation is pretty vague. in any real life situation, the comissioner would likely be asked to define for others why exactly raising additional funds is not "feasible" and why his proposed cuts are "feasible".

edit: actually, after re-reading the question, i agree that it's pretty clear that it's (B).

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 76

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2007, 04:22
i feel its E because he fails to consider other options and sees cut in expediture as only solution. Any other opinion, What the Oa

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 7

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

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2007, 07:32
I arrived at B through POE.

I decided to stick with B because of this reasoning:

reducing costs is adequate to to solve the revenue shortfall in light of no other ways to increase revenue. However, it is not the only (required) way to solve the problem as the mayor stated "only if we adopt this plan".

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

Manager
Joined: 20 Nov 2006
Posts: 213

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2007, 09:01
I vote for E

We are required to find the flaw of the passage, and E gives it in the straight way.

What is the OA?

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 272

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2007, 19:11
B it is

plan would yield savings

and this is taken for granted as required
_________________

AimHigher

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1439

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2007, 21:42
jet1445 wrote:
1.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 commissionerâ€™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

I think it as A. How reliable is the budget forecaster's forecasts anyway?

On B my reasoning is - if indeed there is no way to INCREASE available funds AND a revenue shortfall is BOUND to happen then employing CUTS DOES become the REQUIRED solution.

Kudos [?]: 218 [0], given: 13

Re: CR   [#permalink] 24 Mar 2007, 21:42
Display posts from previous: Sort by