QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: The salaries and duties of the two new employees should be reduced.
REASONING: The two new employees have complex duties and high salaries. Inexperienced workers usually don’t have such things.
ANALYSIS: Barnes’ only evidence is that these workers have more pay and more complex duties than inexperienced workers usually get. He says this is wrong. But an equally likely conclusion is that the workers are actually experienced.
- This double negative can be confusing. This can be read as “no other employees have duties as complex as these two.” But there could be other people with more complex duties (the CEO?)…as long as the two workers have duties more complex than new hires.
- The argument might actually be stronger if this weren’t true (i.e. if the real reason were that the hiring manager was drunk.)
- CORRECT. If the two newest employees are experienced then Barnes has no evidence.
- This has nothing to do with Barnes. He’s just the one making the argument. Besides, Barnes wasn’t claiming that absolutely no one has a higher than average salary starting out.
- Other companies aren’t really relevant since Barnes is discussing his own company’s normal practices. But Barnes is likely assuming that the salaries actually are much higher than the industry average. That’s why he thinks the salaries ought to be lowered.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly