LR Drill Set 2, Question 4
Economist: Raising the minimum wage would force industries(25 more words not shown)
The economist's argument is most(14 more words not shown)
- Amost industries will(10 more words not shown)
- Ba minimum-wage increase(16 more words not shown)
- Cworkers trained to(15 more words not shown)
- Da low unemployment(7 more words not shown)
- Ethere are ways(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A useful side effect isn't the whole decision.
I can follow the economist's story. If labor costs rise, an industry has a stronger reason to develop technology that does the work more cheaply. Imagine a restaurant investing in a machine to perform a task because employees now cost more to hire. The argument tells us the resulting advances would benefit society enormously.
But what else happens?
What if the change also causes layoffs or some other serious cost? Those are possibilities to investigate, not established effects of this policy. Even a large technological benefit doesn't by itself settle whether raising the minimum wage is the best action to take.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks for a possibility the economist has failed to consider. My first objection is an overlooked downside. We should stay open to an answer that exposes another gap between “this produces a benefit” and “we should do this.”
Working the answers
- A
If industries need some pressure before they will adopt advanced technology, that can fit the economist's case for creating pressure through higher labor costs. It doesn't challenge the recommendation. And it doesn't establish that raising the minimum wage is the only possible source of pressure; other incentives or requirements might also work.
- B
The argument doesn't compare a rapid increase with a gradual one. It recommends raising the wage without choosing a timetable. A difference in how quickly increases produce competition doesn't show that the technological-benefit argument fails. Either schedule could still produce the stated benefit.
- C
These workers already earn more than the minimum, so increasing that minimum may not change their own pay. But the argument concerns industries responding to greater labor costs by adopting technology, not a claim that every worker earns the minimum. Some employees' existing skill premium doesn't expose the missing policy comparison.
- D
Low unemployment and greater technological efficiency could coexist. That doesn't identify a neglected reason against raising the wage. If anything, it leaves room for technological progress without the employment downside I initially worried about. It certainly doesn't establish that the policy has a cost large enough to undermine the recommendation.
- ECorrect
This takes a different route from the downside I predicted. What if another measure would induce technological progress more effectively? A tax incentive, for example, might encourage the same innovation through a different route. That is an illustration of the alternative, not a fact supplied about any actual program.
The economist has given us a benefit of raising the wage without considering whether another approach would achieve that goal better. E doesn't prove that the wage should remain unchanged. It identifies a relevant possibility the argument needs to address before using technological benefits to justify this particular recommendation.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.