no insult to "changed name" but the discussion of probability in the way he described it is completely irrelevant. Since about half are approved there is a dependency between the denied and approved sets.
You don't know this. If the approval or denial was based on a coin flip (meaning about half get approved), there would be no dependency.
Earlcat's explanation is out of scope. There is no reason to believe we need more information about the procedures of budget approval. Either it is approved or it isn't. Assuming there is more information to budget approval is the type of out of scope thinking LSAC does not want you to do.
Fail. Try actually reading my post. I never said we NEED more information. I said we don't have enough information--that is, enough information to conclude the trivial nonsense you're rattling on about. If you read further you'll find that, "the only important thing" is the assumption between the premise and the conclusion. Discussing the necessary assumption in a necessary assumption question is hardly outside the scope. (But nice try on the Kaplan buzzword.)
You're getting into the weeds with your (completely inaccurate) analysis of the veracity of the argument. If you're ever going to conquer this test, you need to realize that the subject matter is completely irrelevant to solving the problem. The thinking has to take place at a more abstract level where you can apply similar reasoning to every problem. Your treatise on the budget approval process, even if it was helpful for this problem (which it's not), is of absolutely no use on any other problem.
If the question had read, "Our next budget proposal will probably be approved, because normally about half of all budget proposals that the vice president considers are approved, and last night was a full moon," the same type of assumption is present ("the stage of the moon affects the likelihood that the next budget proposal will be turned down"), but your analysis goes out the window. Do you see how the number of budget proposals is now completely irrelevant? Do you see how the fact that half of the proposals are approved is completely irrelevant? Well, all of that was completely irrelevant in the first place.
Let's say there are 10 requests and the last 5 are denied then the next one will likely be approved.
Good grief, now you're making the same stupid assumption the author did!
lol at the Kaplan reference. I was thinking the same thing and almost posted the question 'llsatt1, have you been drinking the Kaplan cool-aide?'
llsatt1, you are all over the place and have even contradicted yourself a few times with your analysis.
Let's start from scratch and make sure you understand the question stem because I think that might be where your misunderstanding is partially coming from. The reasoning is FLAWED
because it 'presumes, without giving warrant, that
'. The presumes without warrant part is equivalent to saying assumes or assumption, meaning that you are supposed to be selecting the answer choice that states a faulty assumption the conclusion of the argument is relying on. Since it tells you that the reasoning is flawed BECAUSE
of the assumption, it is asking you to identify an assumption that is not reasonable or logical to make.
It boils down in part to the difference between warranted and unwarranted assumptions.
To illustrate this in general terms about warranted vs. unwarranted/flawed assumptions:
Is it safe to assume that when it rains that the streets get wet? ABSOLUTELY! That is a warranted assumption.
Is it safe to assume that when somebody is talking about an alligator or a snake that they are talking about a reptile even if they don't specifically say they are reptiles? Yes, that is common sense.
As it applies to this LR question, is it safe to assume that past events and the statistics about them (remember, statistics are compilations of data about many past
events over time calculated into averages and other statistical measures) will determine or likely determine what is going to happen with the next event regarding the subject matter in question? NO!
That is a logically flawed unwarranted assumption.
I'd bet that if you went to Vegas or a casino somewhere and played roulette that your reasoning and betting strategy would be something like 'the last 5 spins came up black so red is due and going to hit next' and bet red.
llsatt1, you need to learn the common flawed methods of reasoning much better as well as learn logically valid methods of reasoning and be able to tell the difference between the two sets. If you're getting your LSAT prep from a Kaplan book or something related or like that, put it down and get some prep from a quality source with quality materials.
Earlcat knows his $hit about all this and so do I.
If you want to get good advice and improve your score, instead of being combative/argumentative/recalcitrant or whatever, I suggest you listen to advice from people that know this stuff by asking questions for clarification or whatever in a friendly way instead of vigorously trying to defend flawed and incorrect reasoning.
One common type of counter productive attitude people prepping for the test get and let guide themselves (which leads them to not doing as well as possible) is trying to argue with the test and fighting and arguing that the credited answer choice is not or should not be correct.
The test is very well constructed and put together with tons of extensive quality control and review procedures before a question appears on an administered exam in a scored section in order to make sure the logic and everything is sound. There have been very few of the 5000+ administered questions that were later removed from scoring due to flaws. I can count them all on two hands, barely needing the fingers of my second hand.
You are preparing for the LSAT. Earlcat, myself, and many other people on this and other related boards have achieved 99% scores (high 170 range) and have been teaching and tutoring people for the LSAT for many years. Instead of fighting with us, just ask questions and we'll be glad to help.