LSAT 106 – Section 3 – Question 17

LSAT 106 - Section 3 - Question 17

June 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:17

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT106 S3 Q17
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Math +Math
A
20%
165
B
72%
168
C
4%
162
D
3%
165
E
0%
140
138
153
168
 +Harder 148.198 +SubsectionMedium

In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North America paid its reporters an average salary that was much lower than the average salary paid by its principal competitors to their reporters. An executive of the newspaper argued that this practice was justified, since any shortfall that might exist in the reporters’ salaries is fully compensated by the valuable training they receive through their assignments.

Summarize Argument
The newspaper executive concludes that the newspaper is justified in paying its reporters a far-below-average salary. Why? Because the lower pay is compensated by the training the reporters get on the job.

Notable Assumptions
The executive assumes that the training reporters receive while working for the newspaper in question is substantially higher in quality than the training they would receive at a higher-paying competitor. Otherwise, the training couldn’t justify the low salary.
The executive also assumes that the newspaper’s reporters are generally inexperienced enough to benefit from additional training, or that their pay increases after they gain experience.

A
Senior reporters at the newspaper earned as much as reporters of similar stature who worked for the newspaper’s principal competitors.
This does not weaken the argument. If anything, it strengthens by affirming the executive’s assumption that the pay shortfall is limited to reporters who benefit from additional training.
B
Most of the newspaper’s reporters had worked there for more than ten years.
This weakens the argument by indicating that most of the newspaper’s reporters do not benefit from additional training. That would mean they just get paid less without receiving any benefit in return—in other words, the pay gap would not be justified.
C
The circulation of the newspaper had recently reached a plateau, after it had increased steadily throughout the 1980s.
This does not weaken the argument. The circulation of the newspaper has nothing to do with whether or not the newspaper is justified in paying reporters less. Like (E), this claim is just irrelevant.
D
The union that represented reporters at the newspaper was different from the union that represented reporters at the newspaper’s competitors.
This does not weaken the argument. Having a different union has no bearing on whether the pay difference is justified: maybe the union is weak and failed to negotiate a good deal, or maybe getting more training is actually a great bargain for reporters. We just don’t know.
E
The newspaper was widely read throughout continental Europe and Great Britain as well as North America.
This does not weaken the argument—like (C), it’s just irrelevant. Where the newspapers readers are located has nothing to do with the executive’s argument about lower pay for reporters being justified.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply