PrepTest 108, Section 3, Question 22
Jim: I hear that the company is considering(74 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AIn order to(13 more words not shown)
- BIn order to(19 more words not shown)
- CIn order to(26 more words not shown)
- DIn order to(26 more words not shown)
- EIn order to(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Good for Fred and Dorothy if they get a raise. Why would making more than Jim automatically be unfair?
Jim points to how long he's worked at the company. But what if Fred and Dorothy have different responsibilities? What if they do the same job better? Time at a company could matter without being the only thing that matters. We haven't been told enough to decide what salaries would actually be fair.
Tasha accepts a similar focus on time at the company and extends it to 35 other employees. They've been there as long as Jim and earn what he earns. If Jim gets a raise, she says, they should get one too. That doesn't mean no one can get a raise. Raising everyone's salary could satisfy both speakers' concerns.
What we’re looking for
Now we're asked for a principle that helps justify both statements. We need to follow their shared approach, even if we wouldn't choose it as a pay policy. Look for a rule linking pay to time at this particular company. Then check both comparisons: Jim versus the newer employees, and Jim versus the employees with the same length of service.
Working the answers
- A
Identical duties aren't the shared fact here. We don't know whether Jim and the others have the same responsibilities. That was something we wanted to ask while reading, but it isn't the reason either speaker gives. A rule about duties won't establish the salary comparisons from the facts provided.
- B
Experience in the field can include years at other companies. Fred might be new to this employer after decades doing similar work elsewhere. The speakers compare time at this company, so a rule about total experience doesn't settle either of their comparisons.
- C
This helps Jim, but what does it do for Tasha? It requires higher pay for the person who has been at the company longer. Tasha's 35 employees have been there exactly as long as Jim. Neither side of that comparison has longer service, so C doesn't require their salaries to stay equal.
Also notice the difference from Jim's own request: he wants at least as much as Fred and Dorothy, not necessarily more. C's stronger rule could still support Jim. Its decisive shortcoming is that it leaves Tasha's equal-service comparison unresolved.
- DCorrect
To pay someone more, that person must have worked at the company longer. Apply that requirement to each proposed raise.
Fred and Dorothy haven't worked there longer than Jim. Under this rule, they cannot fairly end up earning more than he does. His salary therefore needs to reach at least theirs if their raises go ahead.
Jim also hasn't worked there longer than the other 35 employees; their service times are equal. So he cannot fairly receive higher pay than they do. Raising his salary requires raising theirs too. D covers both groups without requiring someone with longer service always to receive strictly higher pay.
- E
Hours worked each day are different from years spent at the company. We aren't told who works longer days, and neither speaker bases the salary claim on daily hours. This changes the comparison instead of supplying their shared rule.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.