- Joined
- Jun 2025
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Applications
Discussions
I'm looking for more perspective on this older question for which there isn't much help online––
Being a Principle question, it has a clear "should" gap. After reading the stimulus, I immediately started looking for an answer choice that says something like steps should be taken to educate people...
The only answer choice to do that is (B), so I picked it. I admit that "formulating ethical guidelines" is not the same as educating people, but it does count as a step toward educating people, which is what the stimulus' conclusion is about. Hence, no red flags stood out to me with (B).
Yet, somehow, surprisingly, (A) is the correct answer. Despite the fact that it misses the "should" gap. All it does, in my view, is strengthen the argument's reasoning by asserting a link between "education" and "increasing one's moral responsibility."
Clearly, (A) and (B) have their own weaknesses. (A) lacks a "should," and (B) is less precise than (A). How do I choose between two imperfect answers? Which weakness is greater?
Is there perhaps a definitive lesson can I conclude from this question to decide between two imperfect answers in the future? Happy to hear anyone's thoughts.
The argument's main causal link is: increased minimum wage --> more disposable income --> more consumer spending--> more demand for consumer goods --> more factory jobs to meet production --> decreased unemployment.
Answer choices that weaken the argument will try to weaken this chain of events. They'll most likely add a confounding factor that stops the chain somewhere, or breaks one or more of the causal relationships. Let's see which answer choices do this, and select the one that doesn't.
(A) weakens the argument by saying people won't have more disposable income. Instead, the higher prices of goods would restrict their disposable income. The chain stops there, this is a weakener.
(B) weakens the argument by saying more demand for consumer goods won't lead to more factory jobs in Country X, because these goods are produced in another country. The chain stops there, this is a weakener.
(D) weakens the argument by saying we won't have decreased unemployment, we'll actually have increased unemployment because of layoffs. The conclusion is thwarted, this weakens the argument.
(E) weakens the argument by saying more demand for consumer goods won't lead to more factory jobs, because most factories have a surplus of goods that they have to get rid of first. The chain is affected, this is a weakener.
(C) is not a weakener, even though some of its words may allude it to be. It's especially not a weakener because of the word many, which effectively means some. If some factories pay most of their employees more than minimum wage, it doesn't affect any part of the chain of events. What about other factories? What about other non-factory minimum-wage jobs? Even with (C), minimum-wage job holders could have more disposable income, leading to more spending, more demand, more factory jobs, and decreased unemployment. The argument is not weakened.
To make (C) work, you are probably assuming that it says most factories pay most of their employees more than minimum-wage, and thus that there aren't many minimum-wage jobs holders who will follow this chain of events. These are two unfair assumptions, and not what (C) says (many≠most). In fact, the stimulus also implies that a large segment of the working population holds minimum-wage jobs.
I hope this helps.