PrepTest 143, Section 3, Question 13
University administrator: Graduate students incorrectly claim that teaching(70 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- AThe administrator is(13 more words not shown)
- BThe university employs(12 more words not shown)
- CThe university has(17 more words not shown)
- DMost teaching assistants(8 more words not shown)
- ETeaching assistants work(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why would working to pay for school disqualify someone from employee benefits?
The administrator admits that teaching assistants teach classes and receive pay. The objection is that the sole purpose of those services is to fund their education, and they wouldn't hold the posts if they weren't students needing that money.
I'm skeptical of the “sole purpose” claim. Doesn't the university get teaching out of this arrangement? If the only goal were to help students pay for school, why have them teach rather than simply reduce their tuition or help them find another part-time job? Those possibilities make me want to examine what the university gets from their work.
There's also a separate problem with the reasoning. People commonly work because they need money for something. Why should the particular thing they need money for determine whether they count as employees?
What we’re looking for
For a weakener, my first thought is a fact showing that their reason for working doesn't rule out benefits. The choices could also challenge the administrator's account of the arrangement itself.
Working the answers
- A
Knowing what benefits cost doesn't establish whether the teaching assistants should receive them. That knowledge might help explain why an administrator resists offering benefits, but awareness of the expense doesn't undermine the argument's stated reason for denying them.
- B
We already agree that teaching assistants receive financial compensation. Similar pay for adjunct instructors doesn't settle whether teaching assistants should be treated as employees or receive the same benefits. We'd need a connection between the similar compensation and the disputed entitlement, which B doesn't supply.
- CCorrect
Replacing 10 percent of the faculty with teaching assistants to save money gives the university a purpose of its own for using their labor. That directly challenges the claim that the sole purpose is helping the students fund their education.
The arrangement can benefit both sides: students receive money, and the university obtains teaching at a lower cost. C doesn't have to establish a complete rule about who deserves benefits. It weakens the argument by undermining the account of the teaching posts on which the administrator relies.
- D
Tuition isn't necessarily the full cost of pursuing an education. A stipend above tuition could still help cover living expenses or other costs. More fundamentally, the amount left after tuition doesn't determine whether these workers qualify for employee benefits. D doesn't establish either that the administrator's stated purpose is false or that the conclusion about benefits is wrong.
- E
Working as hard and as much as other employees can make the demand for benefits sound sympathetic. But the administrator's distinction rests on why the teaching posts exist, not on how demanding they are. E doesn't directly challenge the claimed sole purpose or supply a rule linking equal workload to employee status. C attacks an explicit foundation of the argument more directly.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.