Q13 - Many economists claim that financial

[cyruswhittaker]

I'm unclear how C most weakens the argument.

Is C correct because it would show that the features that could be chosen as the most desirable are directly linked to salary, and hence salary could still be the strongest incentive?

And is B incorrect because it is too limiting by saying "identical job" since the argument is providing a comparison in a more general context?

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great question.

The argument assumes that if people are motivated by money, that they would name salary as an important consideration. But it's still possible that people would be motivated, even highly motivated, by money in other ways other than salary, and answer choice (C) points that out.

Incorrect Answers
(A) says why people might not be motivated by money. This supports the conclusion.
(B) says that having money is preferred to not having money, but does not relate money to other job considerations, and so the importance people place on money relative to other factors is not addressed.
(D) doesn't support the idea that money is or is not more motivating than other factors.
(E) is irrelevant. Whether people are aware of the associated responsibilities of a high salary position doesn't undermined nor address whether money is more motivating than other factors

I hope this helps. Let me know if you still have questions.

[cyruswhittaker]

Thank you for your explanation; this problem really confused me.

So let me just make sure I have it right:

Author assumes that if people were motivated most strongly by money, then they would choose salary as their most desirable feature. However, this might not be the case because salary might not be the only representation of monetary benefits that a job provides. Answer choice C attacks this assumption by saying that jobs with the same salary can have other financial benefits, and hence it is still perfectly plausible that the economists’ claim is consistent.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Correct. Good work!

[mrudula_2005]

I still don't get how (C) is stronger than (B). Even if (C) is true, we don't know that people end up actually CHOOSING jobs with extra/better financial benefits over jobs with poorer financial benefits. It would be too much of a leap (and involve making extra assumptions) to assume that people base their decisions of which job to take on these "other financial benefits." (C) just seems too vague and not directly threatening to the stimulus. Is it just the mere existence of OTHER non-salary financial rewards that is enough to make (C) weaken the argument?

Meanwhile, I feel like (B) does a much better job and its example directly supports the economist's contention that financial rewards do provide a strong (maybe not strongest as he says) incentive for people to choose one job over another and in so doing it weakens the stimulus' conclusion which goes against the economist's contention.

In (B), people are clearly and patently motivated by money whereas in (C) we have no way of knowing if these people looking at jobs that pay the same salary actually end up basing their decisions on those financial benefits. Just because they exist, does not mean that people actually are influenced by them in a directly proportional way, and therefore it just can't weaken the conclusion without us making extra assumptions.

More clarity on this one would be much appreciated! Thanks a lot!

[mrudula_2005]

to continue what i was saying...i think I understand how (C) is correct more when I think about it as putting a different spin on their evidence that "in many surveys, most people do not name high salary as the most desirably feature of a job." I can see how it weakens the reasoning that leads the author from that evidence to the conclusion of the argument. but it's really hard for me to see it as a better choice when it comes to directly weakening the conclusion especially given that we don't know to what extent people make their decisions informed by these other financial benefits.

[pinkdatura]

I got this one wrong too, my understanding why b is not correct:

if other things stay the same, people choose the one with higher wage, it doesn't provide any strength that money is the strongest incentive, coz other factors are the same, in order to qualify as the strongest, we need a comparison between other factors with money, so that would be if other factors are different, money plays a big role...

I am not sure if I explain my point well

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Let's take a close look at the argument. There's a gap in the reasoning between naming "high salary" as the most desirable feature of a job and being motivated by "financial rewards" in the their job choices.

We're asked to weaken this argument. We can do this by suggesting that there are other kinds of financial rewards other than salary. This would establish that the conclusion drawn is broader than the supporting evidence allows. Answer choice (C) does just that.

Answer choice (B), however, tells us that all else equal, we'll take the money. But it doesn't tell us whether money was the most important factor in making the job choice.

Does that help clear this up?

[haeaznboiyoung]

So I see how C works, it attacks the hidden assumption in the argument.

But can't B also weaken the argument by attacking the conclusion?

C: Economists overestimate the degree in which people are motivated by $ in their job choices.

B says that people would want more money over less money for the same job. Doesn't that already imply that money IS the most important factor? If the jobs are identical there would be no other factor. I started thinking maybe there can be something in relation to the conclusion saying "job choices" but isn't B still saying people are "choosing" one job with more money over another job with less money?

I kind of feel like I'm slowly starting to see why B isn't correct but I just need a little extra help steering towards the right direction please

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

In your scenario money would be the deciding factor, but that doesn't mean that it was an important or the most important factor.

Suppose there are 4 factors that you would consider when selecting a job. These are listed in order of importance.

1. Job Responsibilities
2. Vacation Policy
3. Stress Level
4. Compensation (pay)

In choosing between a job at Happywell Inc. and Azerus Corporation, the first three factors are equivalent between both jobs in your mind. But the final factor favors Happywell Inc.

So you choose Happywell Inc. Between the two jobs (all else equal), the job with more money wins. But that doesn't mean that money was the most important factor.

Let me know, if you still see it differently.

[timsportschuetz]

As the above poster stated, the key to solving this question is the term shift between the premise and conclusion. Financial rewards is being undermined. However, the argument shifts by using "High salary" as a premise to support his conclusion which undermines the economists' claim.

(B) can be eliminated by focusing on the above term shift. This answer, once again, preys on the test-takers that did not catch this scope shift. It attempts to solidify the premise of the conclusion, which is based on the faulty term "high salary" instead of "financial rewards".

Scope and/or term shifts are key! I find that answering a vast majority of FLAW and STRENGTHEN/WEAKEN questions can be answered using this method of close scrutiny and identifying scope/term shifts.

[gplaya123]

Here is my 2 cents:

The argument is fairly simple and people seem to be confused about B vs C.

So here we go.

B is substantively wrong.
Now, probably this is what people think:

"Ok, the argument says that economists are wrong about people's motivation in choosing their job. It's not money but something else. So anything that says something like... money is a good motivator is going to be an answer."

The sad thing is... it's true. If B were to convey such idea, then it would have been the right answer. But... unfortunately, it does not. If you read B, it says:

While everything is same, job A pays $10 an hour whereas job B pays $8 an hour. People choose A.

But think about it... isn't this a "wrong comparison?" Of course people choose A. Wouldn't you? But does this show your preference for money? Not really. It would be still consistent to say "I chose A because not money because it has all the features I like. But at the same time, B does too. But A gives more money. So why not kill 2 birds with one stone?"
This is a way to say: money is not a primary factor.

C is all about redefining the term, financial reward.
Very implictly, C is saying: there are two jobs but they vary in financial benefits; in other words, financial reward isn't all about money but other thins like retirement benefits, vacations and so fourth.

[rsmithpt267]

Originally I was confused about this question too, and started typing this for more clarification but then saw my error, so I will explain for others who might not get the above explanations.

Conclusion- Economists overestimate degree to which people motivated by money in job choices.
Support- In many surveys people do not name high salary as most desirable feature.

Flaw- Takes for granted that there are not other monetary benefits jobs provide besides salary.

So real simple, the answer should be something that expands on this flaw.

A- Goods? Not relevant
B- Only about wages/salary.
D- Difficulty? Not relevant
E- Recreation? Not relevant

C- Tells us that salary is not the only monetary benefits provided by a job, which is similar to our flaw.

To confirm it weakens, put it between the support and conclusion-

In many surveys people do not name high salary as most desirable feature. Salary is not the only monetary benefits provided by a job. Economists overestimate degree to which people motivated by money in job choices.

Weakens.

Hope my thought process here is right.

[contropositive]

I understand why B is incorrect and C is right, but I have a question on B.

I noticed sometimes an answer choice will include a study that reached different results from the study in the argument. This happens in this particular argument. I always find these answer choices to be the most sketchy because I think the author could come in and say "well my study was more accurate than this one." are there any particular rules about these answer choices?

B is wrong because we don't know if the wages are the strongest incentives for people, but could it also be wrong because we don't know which one of these studies is more accurate (the one in the answer choice or the author's). The question stem reads, "if true" I don't know if that would mean B's study would be more accurate.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think I know what you're asking, although I'm having a hard time thinking of any example in which you weaken an argument based on a study by citing contradictory findings from a different study.

So the short answer is, "I don't think they've ever done or will do this."

There are definitely some correct strengthen answers that offer a new study with similar findings in order to better corroborate the study the author cited.

I think LSAT would avoid "Study 1 says X" vs. "Study 2 says not-X" because of the issue you mentioned: we have no means of comparing the validity of the studies to each other.

The existence of a study with potentially disconfirming / contradictory findings certainly weakens somewhat, since weakening can be construed as "introducing doubt" concerning the validity of the author's argument.

But honestly I think I'm trying to fabricate "rules" for a situation that doesn't occur. Let me know if you think you have an example of this occurring.

In general, studies are never bulletproof because we would need to know much more about them to fully trust them. But they are useful for raising / lowering the plausibility of a certain claim, even if only by a little.

[JeremyK460]

Breakdown:
People choose one job over another.
The explanation for this is that it’s mainly because of the job’s financial rewards.

But people don’t name high-salary as why they choose one job over the other
So the explanation given is a reach; it’s not mainly because of the job’s financial rewards.

Analysis:
If I’m the people asserting the original hypothesis, my response would be ‘I didn’t say anything specifically about high-salaries’ …

There are other financial benefits (rewards) than just high-salary.

The author (respondent) raises doubts on the (proponent’s) explanation’s latitude (financial rewards not being the strongest motivator) in explaining why ‘people choose one job over another’. The author’s evidence is that ‘some claim that high-salary isn’t the strongest motivator’.

Approach:
All an objection has to show is that financial rewards could be the strongest motivator. This could be done in different ways, but the line of thought I took for this was: I can use the author’s evidence to show that they overlooked something (like showing that people didn’t care about high paying jobs, but they cared about medical/dental/PTO/educational benefits/etc.)

One thing I noted was that the argument isn’t attempting to provide an alternative explanation; like the author isn’t saying ‘financial rewards’ isn’t a motivator AT ALL. The author is saying that the ‘financial rewards’ isn’t the strongest motivator because ‘high-salary’ isn’t the strongest motivator. So, ‘financial rewards’ could be a motivator, but it’s not the strongest, according to the author.

It’s possible that between two jobs: one paying 90k and the other paying 100k. The one paying 100k offers ONLY dental benefits while the one paying 90k offers FULL medical/dental/etc. benefits.

Also, the situation could be reversed, where the 100k job is the job offering FULL benefits and and the 90k job is offering ZERO benefits; and people the job offering 100k, but because of the full-bennies.

So, the original explanation that ‘financial rewards’ is a strong motivator, is still a potential, viable hypothesis!

Thoughts on B and C:
A few commenters said:

‘Even if (C) is true, we don't know that people end up actually CHOOSING jobs with extra/better financial benefits over jobs with poorer financial benefits’

‘In (B), people are clearly and patently motivated by money whereas in (C) we have no way of knowing if these people looking at jobs that pay the same salary actually end up basing their decisions on those financial benefits’.

‘Isn't B still saying people are "choosing" one job with more money over another job with less money?’

My response to this would be:

This isn’t about CHOOSING a job or what they are BASING their decision off of; it’s whether there’s a possibility that the proponent’s explanation can maintain its explanatory power. It’s about whether or not the original explanation is a stretch or not. The respondent (the author) believes the original explanation is a stretch, and I have to fight for the proponent, and show that their explanation might not be a stretch.

Another commenter said:

‘(C) just seems too vague and not directly threatening to the stimulus. Is it just the mere existence of OTHER non-salary financial rewards that is enough to make (C) weaken the argument?’

My response:

In my opinion, yes. It is pretty vague, but the existence of OTHER financial benefits/rewards is enough to show that EVEN IF (respondent’s degree-value claim) high-salary IS NOT the strongest incentive to choose a job, (insert answer-C) different jobs have different financial rewards.

This suggests that high-salary might not play a dominant role in why people choose, and that OTHER financial benefits outside of ‘high-salary’ (like medical/dental/PTO/bonuses) may play a dominant role. High-salary isn’t the only member of the class of ‘financial rewards’.

(TLDR; high-salary isn’t everything): My cousin’s been trading securities for the same firm for over twenty years. When I was a kid, I remember him asking family members for career advice: whether he should take job ‘X’ who was offering him a 50k-base salary and a guaranteed 50-100k-bonus OR job ‘Y’ which offered him a 40k-base salary, no guaranteed bonus, but 5-percent in equity (which is HUGE). He took job ‘Y’ and it wasn’t because of the salary, but because of the 5-percent equity. This is what answer (C) is suggesting.

One commenter said ‘B says that people would want more money over less money for the same job. Doesn't that already imply that money IS the most important factor?’

This implies that money IS an important factor, but the argument is about whether it is the MOST important factor. With that in mind, I wouldn’t want ‘high-salary is a motivator’ as my go-to objection to the idea that ‘high-salary doesn’t motivate people’, because, in this context, both respondent (the author) and proponent (the original claimant) already commit to the idea that money IS a motivator and maybe even an important one, but diverge when it comes to the idea of degree-value of the motivation of ‘financial rewards’; the respondent thinks that the degree of motivation for ‘financial rewards’ is lower than what the proponent believes it is.

Other Answer Choices:
(A) The idea to obtain all the goods one desires seems a little too removed from the central concept: whether or not the economists overestimated.

(D) Similar to A. The argument is about whether economists overestimated their value-degree. This is about what people enjoy.

(E) What does leaving time for recreation have to do with whether economists overestimated or not.