PrepTest 106, Section 3, Question 17
In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North(56 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(16 more words not shown)
- ASenior reporters at(17 more words not shown)
- BMost of the(10 more words not shown)
- CThe circulation of(15 more words not shown)
- DThe union that(17 more words not shown)
- EThe newspaper was(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why stay at a newspaper that pays much less than its competitors? Perhaps a new reporter gets training that makes the job worth taking. I can see how accepting less money now could make sense if the experience builds valuable skills for later.
But are we getting something the better-paying papers don't offer? Their reporters also work on assignments. If the training is just as valuable there, our newspaper can't justify the pay gap merely by pointing out that its own employees gain experience.
I'd also want to know who these reporters are. An intern learning the basics is different from someone well into a career. Training could still help an experienced reporter, but we shouldn't automatically assume it makes up for a large salary shortfall.
What we’re looking for
The executive says the training fully compensates for any shortfall. To weaken that justification, my first prediction is that competing papers provide equally valuable training along with their higher pay. That would expose what the executive hasn't shown: an extra benefit sufficient to offset this newspaper's lower salary.
Working the answers
- A
Matching competitors' pay for senior reporters doesn't undermine the training justification for the lower average. It could make the policy look more reasonable by showing that established senior reporters aren't subject to the same shortfall. We also shouldn't assume this says every other reporter is an intern; it only settles the comparison for the senior group.
- BCorrect
This returns to the concern about who needs the training. Most of these reporters have already worked at the newspaper for more than ten years. That makes it less convincing to justify their lower pay as compensation for a valuable learning opportunity.
It isn't the competing-paper comparison I first predicted, and it doesn't prove experienced reporters can learn nothing. But after ten years in the same workplace, the executive needs a stronger reason to think the training still fully makes up for a substantial salary gap. B gives us a reason to doubt that explanation.
- C
A plateau in circulation might matter to the newspaper's finances. It doesn't tell us whether the reporters receive training valuable enough to compensate for their lower salaries. Financial pressure could help explain a pay decision without making the executive's particular justification true.
- D
Different unions might negotiate different terms, but we're told nothing about what either union achieved. The union's identity doesn't show that this newspaper's training is less valuable than claimed or that it fails to offset the salary difference.
- E
A wide readership doesn't establish the value of the reporters' training. It might even make the job attractive for reasons such as exposure, but that would be something else to investigate. Knowing where the paper is read doesn't undermine the claim about compensation through training.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.