PrepTest 157, Section 2, Question 24
The more profitable a corporation is, the more(59 more words not shown)
The argument requires the assumption(1 more words not shown)
- Aonly a few(24 more words not shown)
- Bif a highly(30 more words not shown)
- Cthe more valuable(24 more words not shown)
- Dfor people who(19 more words not shown)
- Ea highly profitable(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
An expensive bonus only helps this plan if it keeps people working hard.
I can see the potential saving. A manager whose time is valuable could do other work instead of constantly checking on employees. But someone still has to make sure the work gets done. The passage supplies a condition: less monitoring can save money as long as employees have strong incentives to keep working hard. The idea is to maintain their effort while freeing up the manager's time.
Then the conclusion substitutes “expensive bonuses” for those strong incentives. Are they the same thing? Perhaps employees collect a bonus without becoming more motivated to work when nobody is watching. The price of the bonus doesn't by itself establish its effect. The plan would also need the savings to make the expense worthwhile, but the clearest missing link here is between bonuses and the required motivation.
What we’re looking for
The necessary-assumption question should address that link: in the reduced-monitoring situation, the bonuses must actually give these employees a strong incentive to keep working hard.
Working the answers
- A
How many corporations already give effective bonuses doesn't tell us whether this proposed strategy works. It could be widely used or rarely used and still have the claimed effect. The argument doesn't need a particular number of current users.
- B
This begins with a corporation able to save money through expensive bonuses, then attributes that saving to reduced monitoring. It doesn't establish that the bonuses supply the strong incentive needed for the proposed plan. Nor must the argument exclude other ways bonuses might also produce savings. We need the link between the proposed incentive and continued effort, not a general condition assigning the explanation for any savings from bonuses.
- C
This describes what corporations are likely to do when managers' time is valuable. The argument concerns what they can achieve by changing their practices. Whether they already tend to reduce monitoring doesn't establish that bonuses will maintain employees' effort, and the proposed strategy doesn't require the trend C asserts.
- DCorrect
For these employees, when monitoring is reduced, expensive bonuses provide a strong incentive to keep working hard. That connects the conclusion's proposed bonuses with the condition in the premise. If the bonuses didn't provide that incentive, the argument couldn't use its stated reason that reduced monitoring would save money while employees kept working. D supplies a required part of the proposed explanation, even if other questions about the plan could remain.
- E
This makes expensive bonuses the only way to obtain savings from reduced monitoring. The argument doesn't need that. Some other strong incentive could also maintain effort and allow less monitoring. To argue that bonuses offer one way to save, we don't have to rule out every other incentive that could accomplish the same thing.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.