PrepTest 155, Section 2, Question 2
Javier: Government workers are paid higher hourly wages(53 more words not shown)
Javier and Mykayla disagree with(4 more words not shown)
- Athe government could(11 more words not shown)
- Bthe government would(15 more words not shown)
- Cgovernment workers generally(10 more words not shown)
- Devery service that(12 more words not shown)
- Ethe total amount(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Paying less per hour sounds cheaper. But how many hours will we have to pay for?
Javier wants the government to replace its own employees with private contractors because comparable private-sector workers earn lower hourly wages. Before accepting the plan, we might also wonder whether suitable contractors are available. A cheaper worker isn't much help if we can't find one to do the job.
Mykayla raises a different objection: actual contracts have cost the government more than comparable work by its employees would have cost. That challenges the promised savings without disputing the hourly wage comparison.
Here's one way the two facts could fit together. A worker charging $20 an hour might finish a job in one hour, while someone charging $10 an hour takes ten hours. We'd pay the first worker $20 and the second $100. The lower hourly rate produces the larger bill. Mykayla doesn't establish that efficiency explains the contracts, but the example shows why she can accept Javier's wage fact and reject his conclusion.
What we’re looking for
For the disagreement question, keep the prediction specific: would replacing government employees with private contractors save the government money? Javier says yes. Mykayla's cost comparison pushes back against that claim.
Working the answers
- A
Reducing the payroll could mean eliminating work entirely, leaving positions vacant, or replacing employees with contractors. The speakers discuss the last option. Mykayla's objection to the cost of replacement doesn't mean she rejects every possible way to reduce spending by employing fewer people. We don't have opposite positions on this broader claim.
- BCorrect
This names the proposed substitution and its claimed benefit. Javier says the government could save money by having contractors perform its employees' work. Mykayla responds that hiring contractors has actually cost more for comparable services. Their conflict concerns those savings.
- C
Javier explicitly asserts the higher hourly wages. Mykayla never denies them. Her point is that the government can still pay more overall when it hires contractors. Remember the $20-versus-$100 example: a higher rate and a lower total bill can go together.
- D
Could contractors do every government job? That's a reasonable question about the plan, but it isn't Mykayla's objection. She discusses cost, not whether some jobs require government employees. Javier also doesn't claim that literally every service can be contracted out.
- E
We never compare the government's entire annual payroll with its entire annual contractor bill. Either total could be larger depending on how much work each group does. The disagreement concerns the cost of comparable services, not which group currently receives more money in total.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.