PrepTest 109, Section 3, Question 17
In a business whose owners and employees all(42 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(5 more words not shown)
- Aignores the fact(18 more words not shown)
- Bpresumes, without providing(19 more words not shown)
- Cignores the fact(16 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes, without providing(25 more words not shown)
- Epresumes, without providing(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The business pays less. The family members earn less. Why count only the first part?
Imagine a family restaurant whose relatives work long hours for exceptionally low wages. Lower payroll can raise the restaurant's reported profit. But those same wages are income to the family members doing the work. A saving on the business's books isn't automatically an improvement in the family's finances.
The conclusion also calls this the family's surest route to prosperity. That's a strong comparison. What about the income family members could earn through other jobs, or another route such as education leading to different work? We aren't given enough to rank every alternative. More immediately, the author hasn't counted the financial effect on the workers who are part of this very family.
What we’re looking for
The flaw answer should identify that missing side of the calculation. Even if the business makes more profit, we still have to consider the family members' reduced earnings before declaring the family more prosperous.
Working the answers
- A
Other businesses can be profitable while paying high wages. That doesn't, by itself, contradict the claim that a family business is a particularly reliable route to prosperity. The author hasn't said high wages make profit impossible. A also doesn't identify the central problem that the proposed wage saving comes out of the family's own earnings.
- B
Read the strength of each claim. The passage says exceptionally low wages, much lower expenses and higher profits. B changes those into the lowest wages, the lowest expenses and the highest profits. An increase isn't a maximum.
The final claim about the family's surest route is strong, but it still doesn't mean that every business with the lowest wages has the highest profits. B attributes a different and broader comparison to the author.
- CCorrect
The employees receiving low wages are family members. Their reduced income matters to the prosperity of the family just as the business's profit does.
The author treats the reduced payroll as an uncomplicated financial advantage, while ignoring the other side: the relatives are giving their labor for less pay. We need to assess what the family gains overall, including what members might otherwise earn, rather than look only at the profit line.
C says this may reduce prosperity. We don't have to prove the family will be worse off. It is enough to identify a relevant cost the argument leaves out when it promises a sure route to prosperity.
- D
The passage doesn't need this particular explanation of why family members accept low wages. They might act from loyalty, convenience, a sense of duty or some other reason. None of those motives settles whether their reduced wages make the family financially better off. The problem concerns the result, not their intentions.
- E
Saying that low expenses help this business doesn't require saying that only low-expense businesses can succeed. A business with higher costs might also have enough revenue to prosper. E turns one proposed route into the only possible route, which is not a claim the author makes.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.