Social Studies: Reading a City Budget Trade-off
A city council must close a $4 million budget gap. The proposed budget includes $12 million for road repairs, $9 million for parks, and $15 million for public safety. Residents' groups propose three options: Option A cuts road repairs by $3 million and parks by $1 million; Option B cuts public safety by $2 million and parks by $2 million; Option C raises a fee expected to bring in $3 million and cuts road repairs by $1 million. A council member says Option C is best because it "does not cut essential services," while a residents' group says Option B protects roads, which they call the top priority.
1. Check whether each option closes the $4 million gap, showing your arithmetic.
Read the worked answer
Option A cuts $3 million plus $1 million, totaling $4 million, so it closes the gap. Option B cuts $2 million plus $2 million, totaling $4 million, so it also closes the gap. Option C raises $3 million and cuts $1 million, totaling $4 million, so it closes the gap as well.
All three options are arithmetically sufficient, so the choice cannot be settled by the gap alone. The decision requires weighing which services the community values and who bears the cost of each option.
2. Evaluate the council member's statement that Option C "does not cut essential services."
Read the worked answer
The statement is inaccurate as written. Option C still cuts road repairs by $1 million, so it does cut a service that many residents would call essential. What distinguishes Option C is that it spreads the burden: part comes from a new fee rather than all from service reductions. Whether that is better depends on who pays the fee and how the road cut affects residents. The council member should say that Option C reduces the size of service cuts and shifts part of the cost to fee revenue, not that it avoids cuts entirely.
3. The residents' group says Option B protects roads because roads are the top priority. Explain what value judgment this argument relies on and what evidence would be needed to assess it.
Read the worked answer
The argument relies on a value judgment: that road maintenance should outrank parks and public safety when cuts are unavoidable. That is a claim about priorities, not a fact that can be measured directly. To assess it, the council would need evidence such as residents' stated priorities from a survey, the condition of roads and the cost of deferred repairs, the effect of park cuts on services, and the public-safety impact of a $2 million reduction. The group should also acknowledge that Option B imposes its largest cut on public safety, so the argument is a trade-off rather than a cost-free choice.