PrepTest 143, Section 4, Question 2
Programmer: We computer programmers at Mytheco are demanding(75 more words not shown)
Evaluating the adequacy of the(12 more words not shown)
- Awhether any of(12 more words not shown)
- Bhow the average(11 more words not shown)
- Cwhether the sorts(15 more words not shown)
- Dwhether the Mytheco(11 more words not shown)
- Ehow the Mytheco(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Different pay doesn't automatically mean unfair pay. What if the technical writers do harder work or contribute something the programmers don't? Those are possibilities to consider before accepting the programmer's complaint.
The executive gives a different explanation: Mytheco pays according to seniority, and many technical writers have worked there longer than many programmers. I can see how that could explain a pay difference. But explaining the company's policy isn't the same as showing that the policy is fair. Should time at the company determine compensation? That's my first question for the executive.
What we’re looking for
We're asked what needs clarification to evaluate the response. I'd initially expect something about whether paying for seniority is fair. Let's see whether the choices address that concern or expose another problem in the explanation.
Working the answers
- A
Someone's previous job title doesn't tell us whether the current pay difference is justified. A former programmer could have either more or less seniority than other employees. We need information that tests the executive's reason for comparing the two groups' compensation.
- BCorrect
This catches something more basic than my initial concern: does the seniority difference actually exist for the groups on average?
The executive said many writers have been there longer than many programmers. That leaves plenty of room for the programmers to have greater average seniority. Imagine a huge company where a small fraction of the writers are longtime employees. There could be many such writers, yet the rest of the writers could be new and most programmers could have worked there for years. Pointing to the longtime writers wouldn't explain why writers receive more on average.
Comparing the averages directly tests the executive's explanation. Higher average seniority among writers would support the proposed reason for their higher pay. Higher average seniority among programmers would make that reason much harder to accept. We still could debate the fairness of the policy, but first we need to know whether the policy explains this difference.
- C
Salary and benefits could rise together or be calculated separately. Either way, that doesn't tell us whether the writers' higher overall compensation reflects greater seniority. C concerns the relationship between two parts of compensation, rather than the executive's reason for paying one group more.
- D
The executive's career history doesn't establish whether this explanation works. Even a former technical writer could offer a sound or an unsound comparison. We need to examine the reason given, not decide the issue from who gave it.
- E
The executive could earn vastly more than either group, and we'd still have the same question about the writers and programmers. Comparing the executive's salary with programmers' salaries doesn't clarify the seniority explanation for the difference under discussion.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.