PrepTest 133, Section 2, Question 15
Sociologist: A contention of many of my colleagues—that(64 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AWhen companies can(18 more words not shown)
- BPeople who expect(14 more words not shown)
- CA lack of(8 more words not shown)
- DA company's ability(10 more words not shown)
- EEven relatively well-paid(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A company can hire freely and still keep wages flat, can't it?
That's the missing connection. The sociologist says large wage differences should reduce social friction because they let companies hire freely as conditions change. Then we learn that the real source of friction is wages that stay the same or move slowly.
That makes the direction of wages relevant, but how does freedom to hire affect it? Hiring additional people doesn't automatically give anyone a raise or make wage levels change quickly. A company could recruit new workers at the same rates it has paid for years. In that situation, it can hire freely while the sociologist's supposed cause of friction remains in place.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption the argument requires. Connect the benefit the sociologist names—free hiring—to the problem the sociologist says causes friction—static or slow-changing wages. We need the claim that when companies can hire freely, wages generally won't remain stuck.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Free hiring now goes with wage levels that aren't static or slow changing. That fills in the link between the reason offered and the predicted reduction in social friction. If companies could hire freely while wages stayed stagnant, the stated source of friction could persist, and the sociologist's explanation for the opposite effect would break down.
- B
This concerns people's expectations, not whether free hiring changes wage levels. People expecting raises might respond differently to income gaps, but the argument hasn't established that anyone expects a raise. B doesn't connect the company's hiring freedom with the wage movement on which this argument depends.
- C
We aren't trying to explain why companies expand or how cautious they are with money. A lack of financial caution causing expansion gives us neither a connection to changing wages nor a reason social friction would decrease. It is a different claim about business behavior.
- D
Always benefits its workers is much stronger than the sociologist needs. The argument concerns one proposed effect: reducing social friction by avoiding wage stagnation. A company might respond quickly in some way that harms particular workers, yet the narrower connection the sociologist needs could still hold. D also leaves that wage connection unstated.
- E
Being dissatisfied with your job isn't the same as social friction over wages. A well-paid employee could dislike a job because pay never rises, but that doesn't tell us how people relate to one another across wage levels. More importantly, E doesn't explain why allowing companies to hire freely would prevent stagnant wages. It leaves the central gap open.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.