PrepTest 144, Section 4, Question 16
Economist: If the economy grows stronger, employment will(48 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AIf the economy(17 more words not shown)
- BIf the economy(27 more words not shown)
- CIf the economy(14 more words not shown)
- DThe shortage of(24 more words not shown)
- EThe total number(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why can't the day-care centers hire replacements?
The economist gives us two changes to consider. More parents will be working, so more families will need day care. Meanwhile, many current day-care workers will leave for better-paying jobs. I can see why that combination creates concern.
But departures aren't the whole staffing picture. Some people could leave while other people enter the field. If centers can hire plenty of new workers, losing current employees doesn't by itself tell us how much care will be available.
What we’re looking for
The necessary-assumption question asks what this forecast relies on. I'd expect something addressing that omitted hiring side. We need a limit on the possibility that new workers will offset the departures and supply the care these families need. Let's see how the answers describe it.
Working the answers
- A
We know there will be better-paying opportunities that attract many day-care workers. That doesn't mean most new jobs must be in well-paying fields. There could be many ordinary-paying jobs and enough better-paying ones to draw these workers away. The argument doesn't require A's claim about the majority.
- BCorrect
This addresses the people coming in as well as the people leaving. Suppose a center starts with ten workers, loses three, and hires seven. Looking only at the three departures hides the fact that it now has fourteen workers. Enough new hiring could undermine the staffing concern, so the argument relies on ruling out a significant surplus of new workers over departing workers. B does that without requiring staffing to fall. Keep that last distinction in mind when comparing C.
- C
This is tempting: if workers leave, surely there have to be fewer workers for care to get harder to find? But remember the other premise. Demand is increasing too.
Imagine five centers serving ten children. Now twenty children need places, and the same five centers have the same capacity. Care can be harder to find even though staffing has not decreased. We don't need to go from five centers to four to create the problem; keeping five while the number of children doubles can do it. C requires a decrease that the argument doesn't need. B leaves room for this fixed-capacity problem.
- D
A stronger economy could worsen a shortage without being the only way a shortage could worsen. A pandemic, for example, might also disrupt the available care. D rules out worsening unless the specified employment increase and departures occur. The economist makes a claim about one possible cause, not a claim that no other cause can produce the problem.
- E
The argument doesn't predict how enrollment responds to higher prices. Some parents might turn to grandparents or rearrange work schedules; others might pay more. We don't need to settle those responses to claim that day care will become harder to find.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.