PrepTest 128, Section 2, Question 10
Columnist: Raising the minimum wage to the level(42 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AWorkers who earn(17 more words not shown)
- BAny increase to(17 more words not shown)
- CThe proposed minimum-wage(17 more words not shown)
- DIf raising the(14 more words not shown)
- EChanges in the(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A higher minimum wage could hurt low-income workers? One possibility comes to mind: if a business couldn't afford a proposed $25 hourly wage, perhaps it would cut jobs or close, leaving some workers unemployed. But that is not the columnist's argument.
The columnist focuses on prices. Businesses face higher wage costs, raise their prices, and make necessities more expensive for workers who already struggle to afford them. I can see the concern. But the workers are also receiving more money. What if the extra income covers the extra expense?
That's the comparison we need. Suppose a worker receives $100 more and must spend $60 more on the same necessities. Prices rose, but the worker still has $40 left from the raise. Higher prices alone wouldn't show that the worker was hurt.
What we’re looking for
For this necessary-assumption question, the argument must rule out that response. The added wages cannot fully cover the resulting increase in costs if that increase is supposed to make these workers worse off.
Working the answers
- A
Other workers could be hurt by the higher prices too. The columnist doesn't need to deny effects on workers earning above the minimum in order to argue that low-income workers will be hurt. A restricts who else can suffer without supplying the missing comparison for the workers at issue.
- B
The argument concerns the proposed increase. A smaller increase—say, to $20 instead of $25—might also raise prices, perhaps by a smaller amount. That would not undermine the columnist's reasoning about the proposed level, so B need not be assumed.
- CCorrect
The wage increase must fail to compensate fully for the price increase. Otherwise, the extra income could leave workers able to buy as much as before, or more, despite the higher prices. C blocks that response and supplies the necessary comparison between the added income and added costs.
- D
This concerns whether helping low-income workers would be a good reason to raise the wage. The argument instead tries to establish that the proposal would hurt them. A rule about what would justify a helpful policy doesn't establish the proposal's actual effect.
- E
The conclusion concerns a particular proposal's effect on low-income workers, not the general effect of minimum-wage changes on the whole economy. The economy could benefit overall while this group suffered. A broad judgment about economic benefits isn't required for the narrower argument.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.