QUESTION TEXT: Programmer: We computer programmers at Mytheco are…
QUESTION TYPE: Argument Evaluation
ARGUMENTS: The programmer says it’s unfair that technical writers make 20% more than programmers.
The Mytheco executive says that pay is based on seniority and that some technical writers have worked longer than some programmers.
ANALYSIS: The Mytheco executive makes a badly incomplete argument. They say that pay is based on seniority.
Fine, lets accept that premise. We know that technical writers have a 20% higher pay. If pay is only based on seniority, then that must mean that technical writers have 20% more seniority.
The executive failed to say how the average seniority of both groups compares. They should have told us about the seniority of all technical writers and all programmers. But instead they only told us that “many” of them have worked longer than “many” programmers.
That could just mean that the 10% of writers with the most seniority have been around longer than the 10% of programmers with the least seniority. That’s not very persuasive.
___________
- “Any” is a weak word. This answer could mean that one technical writer was once a programmer. That’s useless knowledge.
- CORRECT. See the discussion above. You need to compare the seniority of everyone.
- Benefits aren’t relevant. The executive mentions them, but the real argument is over pay, because the programmer is only claiming that pay is unfair.
- Possible personal bias is irrelevant to the strength of the executive’s argument.
- The executive’s salary isn’t relevant to the debate. The programmer was only comparing programmer and technical writer salaries.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply