PrepTest 106, Section 2, Question 16
Private industry is trying to attract skilled research(75 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AGovernment research scientists(18 more words not shown)
- BNone of the(18 more words not shown)
- CThe government does(23 more words not shown)
- DThe government does(23 more words not shown)
- EResearch scientists employed(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if staying with the government is in the scientist's own interest? A higher salary isn't the only reason to prefer a job. Someone might value better working hours, more vacation, or other benefits enough to accept less money.
The argument gives us a real salary advantage for most comparably skilled private-sector researchers. It also removes one obstacle to leaving: the government scientists in question could find private jobs. But it then treats public duty as the alternative to following one's own interests. That overlooks personal interests other than salary.
Imagine a scientist who prefers a flexible schedule that makes family life easier. That scientist could choose the lower-paying government job for a personal benefit, without being motivated chiefly by public duty. The same could happen if benefits made the overall compensation package better.
What we’re looking for
For the required assumption, I'd expect the argument to rule out a benefit of government work that outweighs the salary gap. Otherwise, its own-interest reasoning could give these scientists a reason to stay.
Working the answers
- A
Recognition could matter to a scientist's interests, but the argument doesn't require the government to be worse on that measure. Scientists could receive equal recognition in both sectors and still be attracted by a higher salary. This adds another possible reason to leave rather than something the salary-based argument must assume.
- B
The claim about most comparably skilled researchers doesn't establish who holds the single highest salary. An exceptionally highly paid government scientist could exist without settling what the others would gain by moving. The argument doesn't require this universal comparison with the private sector's top salary.
- C
The relative number of highly skilled researchers employed by the government and by each large company doesn't determine the choices of the scientists at issue. The government could employ more or fewer and still face the same question about whether its compensation gives them a reason to leave.
- DCorrect
This excludes the alternative we were worried about: working conditions or benefits could more than make up for the lower salary. If they did, a scientist might stay precisely because staying served that scientist's interests.
For example, a person might turn down a higher-paying office job to retain a much more valuable flexible or remote arrangement. The argument cannot treat a larger paycheck as the decisive personal advantage while leaving open a government benefit that outweighs it. D rules out that problem; it doesn't say that government jobs must have no benefits at all.
- E
Longer hours in private industry could give scientists a personal reason to prefer government employment. That would put pressure on the argument rather than supply a required assumption for it. In any event, the argument doesn't depend on this difference in hours; the hours could be the same while the proposed salary incentive remained.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.