PrepTest 107, Section 1, Question 5
Barnes: The two newest employees at this company(41 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AThe duties of(14 more words not shown)
- BIt is because(22 more words not shown)
- CThe two newest(7 more words not shown)
- DBarnes was not(6 more words not shown)
- EThe salaries of(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
New to the company doesn't mean new to the job.
What if these employees have ten years of experience elsewhere? Perhaps the company usually hires recent graduates but has now hired two people who can handle much more. Their higher salaries and more complicated duties could reflect those qualifications.
Barnes says their pay is too high for the simple tasks normally given to new employees, while their duties are too complicated for inexperienced workers. Notice how the comparison changes. Are these employees actually doing the usual simple tasks? Are they actually inexperienced? Calling them the two newest hires doesn't settle either question.
What we’re looking for
The conclusion recommends reducing both their salaries and their responsibilities. Maybe that is justified, but Barnes has to rule out our objection that these new hires bring relevant experience. We're asked for a necessary assumption, so we want something Barnes needs for this reasoning to work. My expectation is a claim that these aren't experienced workers whose qualifications could explain their treatment.
Working the answers
- A
Barnes doesn't need these employees to have the most complex duties in the entire company. The chief executive could have much harder duties, and Barnes could still think the new hires have more than they can handle. This comparison with everyone else's job goes beyond what the argument requires.
- B
We don't know why the company chose these salaries. Perhaps the complex work explains them; perhaps a personal connection or even a payroll mistake does. Barnes can object to the pay and responsibilities without committing to this particular explanation for how the pay was set.
- CCorrect
Barnes treats the two new employees as inexperienced in their occupations. That is what allows the claim about duties being too complex for inexperienced workers to count against their assignments. If they are experienced, the warning about inexperienced workers doesn't establish that these two need simpler duties. The assumption closes that particular gap; it doesn't independently prove that every part of Barnes's recommendation is wise.
- D
Barnes's own starting salary isn't what we're evaluating. Barnes could have received unusually high pay and still be right or wrong about these employees. A fact about the person making the argument doesn't resolve whether the new hires are experienced enough for their duties.
- E
Barnes doesn't compare this company's pay with competitors' pay. Other companies might pay more, less, or the same for similar experience. This argument rests on the relationship between these employees, their duties, and their supposed inexperience, not on a required claim about the outside market.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.