Self-study
Economist: Conclusion The wages of many of the lowest-paid corporate employees in this country would be protected from cuts by enacting a maximum wage law that prohibits executives at any corporation from earning more than, say, 50 times what the corporation's lowest-paid employees in this country earn. ██████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██ ████████ █████████ █████████████ █████ ███ █████████████ ███████ ███ ███ ███ ████████ ██ █████ █████████████ ██████████ █ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ██████ ████ █████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ██ █████ ███████████ ██████████
Summary
The author concludes that the wages of many of the lowest-paid corporate employees would be protected from cuts if we enact a maximum wage law that puts a cap on the earnings of executives based on some multiple of what the lowest-paid employees earn.
Why?
Because a maximum wage law would remove the incentive that some executives have to cut the wages of lowest-paid employees in order to increase their own salaries.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that if we remove the incentive of executives to cut the wages of lowest-paid employees in order to increase their own salaries, that many of the lowest-paid employees’ wages actually would be protected from cuts. This overlooks the possibility that wage cuts could occur for many other reasons unrelated to the executives’ incentives.
19.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ █████████
a
All of the ███████████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ ████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ███ █████████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████ █████
Not necessary, because the conclusion concerns only “many” of the lowest-paid corporate employees. The author isn’t committed to any belief about “all” of the lowest-paid employees.
b
Some corporate executives ███ ███ ███ ███ ██ █████ █████████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ████ █████ █████████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████ █████
Not necessary, because if it were not true — if every executive who cuts the pay of the lowest-paid employees does NOT earn less than 50 times what those employees earn — that’s consistent with the author’s reasoning. By implementing a maximum wage law, we can remove the incentive of those executives to lower wages.
c
No corporate executives ██ ███ ███████████ ███████ █████ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████ █████████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███████ ██████ ████ █ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ █████████ █████ ██ █████ ██ █████ █████████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████
Not necessary, because the argument doesn’t concern whether executives will “raise” wages. It’s about whether executives would lower wages for certain employees if there were a maximum wage law.
d
If corporate executives █████ ███ ████████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ███ ████████ ██ █████ █████████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ ████ █████ █████ ██████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ██████████
Not necessary, because the author doesn’t have to believe that executives would “never change the wages” of the lowest-paid employees. If some executives chose to raise wages of employees in order to increase their own maximum salary, that doesn’t undermine the author’s reasoning. In addition, the conclusion asserts only that “many” employees’ wages would be protected; there can be some executives who would still cut some lowest-paid employees’ wages.
e
If such a ███████ ████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ ███ ██ ████ █████████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ████████ ██ █████ █████████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████
Necessary, because this is the link from the premise to the conclusion. The author believes if a maximum wage law were enacted, then at least one executive would refrain from cutting the wages of the lowest-paid employees. You can also think in terms of negation. If (E) were not true — if EVERY executive WOULD CUT the pay of lowest-paid employees even if there were a maximum wage law — then the argument doesn’t make sense. The passage of the wage law would not guarantee protection of many lowest-paid employees’ wages.