d fits because proving one direction of a relationship (not enough pay = switch jobs) doesn't mean the other direction is necessarily true (enough pay = un-switch jobs), like proving p -> q doesn't prove !p -> !q, maybe the capable administrators made a bunch of new friends at their private sector jobs and don't want to change back, the passage just says raising salaries -> recapture administrators -> functioning improves without any new explanation, and it's necessary for the argument, so d is correct
for b, "presupposes" feels more like a "the argument needs this but doesn't establish it" sorta thing, so the last sentence explicitly saying recapturing administrators = improves functioning doesn't fit and it's kinda supported by other bits in the passage
also the conclusion is only that it improves functioning, so b goes too far, lots of stuff could improve functioning or be bigger factors and the argument could still be true
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
d fits because proving one direction of a relationship (not enough pay = switch jobs) doesn't mean the other direction is necessarily true (enough pay = un-switch jobs), like proving p -> q doesn't prove !p -> !q, maybe the capable administrators made a bunch of new friends at their private sector jobs and don't want to change back, the passage just says raising salaries -> recapture administrators -> functioning improves without any new explanation, and it's necessary for the argument, so d is correct
for b, "presupposes" feels more like a "the argument needs this but doesn't establish it" sorta thing, so the last sentence explicitly saying recapturing administrators = improves functioning doesn't fit and it's kinda supported by other bits in the passage
also the conclusion is only that it improves functioning, so b goes too far, lots of stuff could improve functioning or be bigger factors and the argument could still be true