LSAT 106 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q17

LR Question 17 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North…

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken

CONCLUSION: The executive said that lower salaries were justified.

REASONING: Reporters received training at the newspaper, by doing assignments.

ANALYSIS: This is a very weak argument. There are two major flaws.

First, assignments serve as training at almost every job. Reporters at every major newspaper probably learn on the job.

Second, journalists at this newspaper may not need any more training by assignment. Once you work a job long enough, you’ve already learned everything you can from your assignments.

___________

1. This strengthens the argument. Once reporters were trained, their salaries matched those of competitors.
2. CORRECT. This shows that most employees didn’t need much more training. Once you’ve worked a job for ten years, you’ve got a pretty good idea how to do things.
3. This has nothing to do with the executive’s justification. And this information doesn’t tell us much, since we don’t know whether other newspapers also hit peak circulation.
4. This could explain why salaries were different. But it doesn’t show there was no value to training.
5. This may strengthen the argument. The newspaper is read (and presumably respected) internationally, so it might help your career to work there for a couple of years at a low salary.