- Thu May 24, 2018 5:42 pm
The flaw in the stimulus is that its author presumes that because something occurred in the past, that this will continue to be true in the future (the arts groups withstood a cut last year, so the arts groups can withstand the same cut this year). Answer choice (E) expresses this flaw in language specific to the stimulus; either the arts groups will survive the funding cut, or they won't, according to the stimulus, so the flaw here is the presumption that the groups will survive a second cut this year, just because they survived one last year, overlooking the possibility that this second cut could potentially drive them to insolvency.
Answer choice (D) is ultimately irrelevant, as the size of the cuts isn't the issue, but whether one can logically assume, given the evidence, that the arts groups will definitely survive the funding cuts, or whether the author's reasoning is flawed and there is a possibility that the groups will not survive the cuts. Since we don't actually know the threshold for the groups' survival, we can't assume that they will or won't survive any further cuts.
Hope this clears things up!