PrepTest 122, Section 2, Question 19
Vanwilligan: Some have argued that professional athletes receive(59 more words not shown)
Vanwilligan's conclusion follows logically if(7 more words not shown)
- AThe fairest economic(22 more words not shown)
- BIf professional athletes(19 more words not shown)
- CThe high level(15 more words not shown)
- DAny salary that(18 more words not shown)
- EIf a professional(26 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The owner is willing to pay. Does that settle whether the salary is fair?
I can see the economic reasoning. Imagine an athlete whose work brings an owner $100 million and who receives $10 million. Those hypothetical figures make the owner's willingness to pay easy to understand. The actual passage gives us the same basic idea: athletes generate enormous profits, so owners offer enormous salaries. But explaining why a deal happens doesn't yet establish that the deal is fair. Someone could agree with every fact about the market and still question the fairness of the outcome.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for an assumption that makes the conclusion follow. Then we need a rule carrying us from one of those established facts to fairness. For example, if any salary an owner willingly pays an athlete is fair, we can apply that rule to these salaries. This is a question about completing the argument, not about whether we personally agree with that view of fairness.
Working the answers
- A
Calling a system the fairest available doesn't show that every outcome within it is fair. Even the best of several systems could produce some unfair salaries. A also concerns the values of most goods and services across society, rather than establishing that these particular athletes' salaries are fair. It doesn't finish the required inference.
- B
Perhaps paying less would reduce the team's income. That would give the owner another business reason to maintain the salaries. It still wouldn't establish that those salaries are fair. A relationship between pay and revenue is not yet a rule about fairness.
- C
This explains why owners may have to offer high pay to obtain the players they want. But market pressure and fairness are different claims. Even if competition forces an owner to pay a particular amount, we still need a reason that amount counts as fair.
- DCorrect
The argument already tells us owners are willing to pay these extraordinary salaries. D says any salary an owner is willing to pay an athlete is fair. Put those together and the stated conclusion follows. The rule may be broad, but on this question it does exactly the work required: it proves fairness from the owner's willingness.
- E
This starts by assuming a salary is fair and tells us how that salary is determined. We need to start with how these salaries are determined and establish fairness. E doesn't let us make that move.
There could be some unfair salaries that are also determined by willingness to pay. E would remain true, because it only sets a condition for fair salaries; it never says every salary meeting that condition is fair. D does supply that guarantee.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.