#19 - Bureaucrat: The primary, constant goal of an ideal

[RayMiller]

I just need clarification here for my analysis. I wasn't sure if I negated the answer choices correctly and if my reasoning was correct for the remaining contender.

Premise: Primary goal is to define and classify all possible problems and set out regulations...
Premise: Ideal Appeal
Premise: Complaint unanticipated problem regulate (I thought these were cause and effect relationships, not conditional)
Conclusion: An ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding system of regulations. (Ideal Ever expanding)
Basically, you have Appeal-Complaint-Problem-Regulate

I'm asked to find an assumption required for the bureaucrat's argument
Prephrase: He assumes that there will always be problems to regulate

My last two contenders were C and D.
C. Similar to my Prephrase. And this is how I negated to check: There will be times that an ideal bureaucracy will not have complaints about problems that are not covered by the bureaucracy's regulations.

-or-

There will be times that an ideal bureaucracy will have no complaints about problems that may or may not be covered by that bureaucracy's regulations.

No complaints means that the bureaucracy will not keep expanding the regulations because they're not locating problems.

D. Ideal reach goal:dbl: Ever-expanding
This is not the way the relationship exists in the stimulus. The conclusion is, Ideal Ever expanding. This answer choice shows a reversed relationship.

I am totally unsure if I analyzed this question and answer choices correctly. Please help. Thx

[Nikki Siclunov]

You analyzed the stimulus correctly, though you might want to simplify your analysis a bit.

The argument can be reduced to the following: the author claims that an ideal bureaucracy needs to set out regulations that take into account every possible problem, and provide an appeal procedure for any complaint. From this, she concludes that there will always be an ever expanding system of regulations. This assumes, of course, that there will always be complaints about some problem that is yet to be regulated. This is basically what answer choice (C) states. Its logical opposite would weaken the conclusion, as it would imply that an ideal bureaucracy could, at some point, be permanently without complaints about unresolved problems.

There is no justification for the "if and only if" idea in answer choice (D). The author need not assume that reaching the goal of an ideal bureaucracy is both a sufficient and a necessary condition for its ever-expanding system of regulations.

Happy holidays! Take a break from the LSAT and eat some Bûche de Noël

[RayMiller]

Thanks Nikki.

First the important stuff...I looked up the Bûche de Noël because I had no idea what it was being a total southern girl and all. It looks delish and I'm definitely going to hunt for a good recipe or where I can buy it to taste!

You are right I definitely needed a break and tend to frequently over analyze because I don't want to miss something. A breather was definitely needed. Thanks again Nikki and I hope you had a great holiday and have a happy new year!

[eober]

Hi,

I used the Assumption Negation technique in answer choice A and if appeal procedure for complaints cannot be provided after all problems and regulations are defined, then how can the bureaucracy can have an expanding system of regulation? Wouldn't this force it to remain with the previously defined problems and regulations?

[David Boyle]

Hi,

I used the Assumption Negation technique in answer choice A and if appeal procedure for complaints cannot be provided after all problems and regulations are defined, then how can the bureaucracy can have an expanding system of regulation? Wouldn't this force it to remain with the previously defined problems and regulations?

Hello,

The passage already says what is in answer A. So answer C, saying that there's always going to be complaints, is the answer.

David

[Sherry001]

Hello ;
this problem took me super long. could you please go over my reasoning in reaching the correct answer? I chose B and then changed my answer to C , but I am still not 100% with this question.
- also in terms of negating a Bi conditional argument do I negate both sides ( since both sides are necessary for one another) ?

1- Bureaucracy defines and sets out all possible problems in setting regulations.
2- Bureaucracy also has a complaint system( in which if an unanticipated issue arises, it gets added to the regulation system).
C: An ideal bureaucracy will have an ever expanding system of regulations.

Q TYPE: Assumption

- My thinking before looking at the answer choices : The conclusion does not really tell us if we could have an ever increasing regulation ( The conclusion does not follow from the evidence). and I see, for instance if, Bureaucracy was not able to define the possible outcomes or not really have complains it could not be an ever expanding system.
________________
A) we already know that bureaucracy has two goals. negated this does not weaken the conclusion of the argument. and does not help us reach the point about ever expanding. it really does not matter if the complaint procedure is added before or after the bureaucracy gets a chance to define its regulations.

B)WOW WOW. super tempting . This is what I chose during the PT. I saw this as absolutely necessary for the argument to work. negated , if there are 0 complains well there is no way bureaucracy could be a system of ever expanding regulation. however I was able to finally get rid of this upon review. because its not necessary that every single problem outlined in the regulation has complaints. ( even if every single problem had its own complaint, it still would not increase the number of problems outlined in the legislation).

C)I think this is telling me , that Bureaucracy is not going to run out of problems that are outside of its regulations. meaning that it will forever and always be expanding. negated this would destroy the argument. so then correct !!

D)I had issues negating this, because it bi conditional. so what I did was negate both sides as they are necessary for one other? thats the main reason why I did not choose this answer.

E)Any is too strong for this kind of question. even if its just some issues the conclusion would still follow.


Thanks a lot !
sherry

[Steve Stein]

Hey Sherry,

That's a good question, and you've got it, so let's start at the beginning: an ideal bureaucracy's constant goal is to identify and classify all possible problems, creating regulations to respond to each one, and an appeals process for any complaint that may arise. If a complaint deals with an issue that has not been previously considered, the regulations are expanded.

From these premises, the author concludes that an ideal bureaucracy will have an ever-expanding set of regulations. The author does recognize that, as you pointed out, this would require an ongoing supply of complaints about issues that were not previously dealt with by the bureaucracy. As you said, when this choice is negated, the result ("an ideal bureaucracy may some time be permanently without complaints") destroys the author's conclusion, confirming this to be the correct answer to this Assumption question.

And what is the issue with answer choice (B)? The negated form of that choice would turn out as follows:

• "For each problem that an ideal bureaucracy has defined and classified, the bureaucracy has not necessarily received at least one complaint about that problem."

Since the negated version of this answer choice does not hurt the author's argument, this cannot be an assumption on which the author's argument relies.


Nice work! I hope this is helpful--please let me know if everything is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[al_godnessmary]

Wow, we're all over the board here, plus I had to look up Bûche de Noël to realize it was a Yule Log...only 8 months until Christmas!

I actually got stuck between C and E. Is the problem with E that "any problem" implies EVERY SINGLE COMPLAINT will reveal an unanticipated problem, as opposed to the idea that requires less defending, which is IN GENERAL, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE COMPLAINTS (that reveal problems to resolve)?

Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

al,

I think you have this exactly. Answer choice (E) claims that any complaint will reveal an unanticipated problem. This is an extreme answer choice, and the argument in the stimulus doesn't need to assume it in order for that argument to work. The argument need only assume that unanticipated problems will keep coming up, not that every complaint will cause a new one to come up.

Robert Carroll

[LSATer]

Hello,

Just for clarity--the sole reason that A is not correct is because it's stated in the stimulus?

The negation of A- "An ideal bureaucracy will not provide an appeal procedure for complaints even after it has defined and classified all possible problems regarding each eventuality," seems to hurt the conclusion.

Because if appeals are not allowed after everything is defined and classified, how can an ideal bureaucracy have an ever expanding system of regulations?


Thanks in advance!
LSATer