PT6.S2.Q19 - Valitania's long-standing practice of paying high salaries

colinlang64

After reviewing answer choice E, I can see how it strongly weakens the argument, but I'm a little confused why answer choice C couldn't be a correct choice as well. If the number of people competing for the elected position isn't more when the pay is high vs when the pay is lower, isn't that enough to prove that these people are not doing it for the purposes of money?

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"

Law and Yoda

I read C and thought "What if those who are paid lower still receive significantly more than the average person." This helped me think about how C doesn't really weaken the argument because what if the lowest paid valitanian politician makes 100k, the highest makes 200k, but an average worker makes 50k. Well then the argument remains true that people are more interested in the money than the needs of the nation. Whereas E is basically saying, someone who is currently working as a valitanian politician could have choose to work somewhere else with more money, therefore these politicians care about the needs of the nation not just the money involved. Hope this helps!

leoxnardx

I chose C as well. Upon reviewing I think the problem with C is that the main intention for holding elected office can still be money even though the pay varies. I overlooked the fact that being "paid poorly" does not rule out the possibility that the politicians are still in for the money and the money only, though that sounds very unlikely in real life (if LSAT adheres to real life we would have a much easier time). Maybe the pay is low only when Valitican experiences major economic crisis and no other job that pays well is available so everyone chooses politics for the money. There can be thousands of possible scenarios in which the politicians main goal is still money when the pay is low.

E is definitely a much stronger weakening answer. E states that for MOST politicians, 51%, there are better options for them if their intention is just money. They can become a merchant or a wealthy TV host and make a lot more, but they still choose to become politicians. That shows that the intention is not so much money anymore. Ok maybe becoming a politician brings in connections or whatever and eventually you get more money, but that is still a more weakening statement comparing to C since it provides that most of the politicians always have other more profiting options that they did not choose.