LSAT 151 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q19

LR Question 19 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Economist: The wages of many of the lowest-paid corporate employees …

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: A maximum wage law would help protect the wages of many lowest-paid corporate employees from cuts.

REASONING: Some executives try to increase profits by cutting the pay and benefits of employees.

ANALYSIS: The argument is fairly narrow. It is not claiming a maximum wage law would eliminate all wage cuts or solve inequality generally. It is just saying that it would protect many low-paid workers from wage cuts.

How? The economist’s reasoning is:

• Some executives currently cut low wages to boost profits and their own salaries.
• A maximum wage law would remove that incentive.
• So, many low-paid workers’ wages would be protected.

There’s a gap between the second and third point: removing an incentive versus actually preventing at least some wage cuts. The argument assumes the law would make some real difference in behavior. If executives would keep cutting wages anyway, or if the law would affect no executive conduct at all, the argument falls apart.

___________

1. This says something about where all low-paid employees work. But the argument only claims the law would protect many workers, not all workers, so it does not require every low-paid employee to work at a corporation affected by the law.
2. This would actually suggest the law might miss some bad actors, which could weaken the argument, but the argument does not require this to be true.
3. The argument is about preventing wage cuts, not causing wage increases. Different issue.
4. Way too strong. The argument does not require executives to stop changing wages altogether – only that some wage cuts would be prevented.
5. CORRECT. If the law protects wages, it has to stop at least some wage cuts.