LSAT 90 – Section 2 – Question 04

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

Target time: 1:12

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

Type Tags Answer
Curve Question
PT90 S2 Q04
Most strongly supported +MSS
Fill in the blank +Fill
+Easiest 146.031 +SubsectionMedium

This is a Fill in the Blank question.

The blank is preceded by the word “therefore,” so we’re looking for a conclusion. That means this is like a type of MSS question where information in the stimulus builds up to support a conclusion hiding in the answer choices.

The author begins with OPA. The other people here are economists. They argue two things in a super long sentence that you have to break into two by noticing the structural indicator words “both” and “and.” First, the economists argue that the higher turnover rate of part-time workers reveals them to be less satisfied with their jobs than full-time workers. Second, the economists argue that part-time, lower-paid workers threaten full-time workers’ job security.

The author begins the transition from OPA to his argument with the word “but.” He says because job efficiency is positively correlated with job satisfaction, companies are unlikely to replace satisfied employees with dissatisfied ones. Before we move into the answers, we have to put this premise together with OPA in order to formulate a general anticipation of where this argument is going. Look again at the economists’ first point. Who are the more satisfied workers? The full-time ones. Put that together with the author's premise that job satisfaction is positively correlated with efficiency and job security. Who are the more efficient workers? The full-time ones. So who has better job security? The full-time ones. That means part-time workers are not likely to be a threat to full-time workers' job security.

This is what Correct Answer Choice (C) says. Dissatisfied part-time workers are unlikely to threaten the jobs of full-time workers. Were this a Method of Reasoning question, we would say that the author uses one of the economists’ points to argue against another of their points.

Answer Choice (A) says full-time workers are likely to lose jobs to part-time workers. This is just the opposite of what the author is trying to argue.

Answer Choice (B) says the companies earning the greatest profits tend to be those that pay their workers the highest wages. There is no information in the stimulus that allows us to draw a connection between a company's profits and the wages it pays its employees.

Answer Choice (D) says the higher turnover rate of part-time workers is only partly caused by their greater job dissatisfaction. If the author cared primarily about teasing out the causal factors of part-time workers' higher turnover rate, then the information about job security between part-time and full-time workers would be out of place. It would have no connection to what (D) thinks is the conclusion. That's one clue that this is not the right answer. Another clue is revealed by asking yourself what the other partial cause of turnover is. Is it job efficiency? But the premise didn't even establish a correlation between efficiency and turnover. It only established a correlation between efficiency and job satisfaction.

Answer Choice (E) says companies generally hire part-time workers only when they are unable to hire full-time ones. Nothing in the stimulus suggests that part-time workers are hires of last resort. There could be many reasons why companies would prefer part-time workers over full-time workers. For example, part-time workers are a better fit for seasonal jobs.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

Leave a Reply