Q19 - Because a large disparity

[b91302310]

I understood why (D) is correct, which is a necessary assumption. I was also wondering why (A) is not good. The conclusion is that "the functioning of public agencies will be improved". So, is it possible that if experience from the private-setor is not valuable in government administration, the functioning will not be improved ? Thus, this experience should be valuable.

Could anyone explain it?

Thanks.

[aileenann]

(A) is ok and could very well be a nice strengthener if that were the task we had set about. (A) would provide a mechanism whereby the plus would be not only getting the old administrators back but also getting them back with added valuable experience.

But even if this isn't true, we probably just want the old administrators back because they were better after all. That is, we need (D) to be true because otherwise we are not going to get ("recapture") our old personnel again.

Try to keep in mind that this argument isn't just about improving the public sector but specifically about going about it by getting the old personnel back. For this reason we need (D) to be true - after all, if the former personnel are not willing to come back, raising the pay won't help.

Does that make sense? Let me know if you have more questions on this!

[ebrickm2]

Is, in fact, the final sentence the conclusion? It seemed like the second to last sentence was the conclusion, at least it makes significant more sense to view the question in this context.

Such that:

If it is necessarily the case that the recapture of the administrators is possible via raising salaries to a comparable level

then it couldn't possibly be the case that those administrators would be unwilling to resume the position otherwise it would deny the syllogistic validity of the conclusion.

I feel like option choice "A" was designed around the ambiguity of the function of the final sentence (which I still am not sure what it is), but even though I thought the final sentence was the conclusion in my first look at the problem, when you negate it, the conclusion isn't invalidated. Being very valuable and not very valuable still entails value. Further, the qualifier "very" in hindsight seems like a good indicator that it is not necessary since other modifiers of this degree don't really appear.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question! The position taken in the stimulus is less an argument than a belief. There isn't really evidence for the last two sentences. Instead they're just claimed to be true. Those claims though rest on some assumptions. I think it's easiest though to see them both as conclusions rather just one or the other.

The second to last claim assumes that those former employees would be willing to move back to the private sector. The last sentence assumes that those administrators would be valuable in government administration. The problem with answer choice (A) is that it is too specific where the value comes from. It's not necessary that the value comes from the experience in the private sector. instead the value could come from their experience from even further back when these folks were in the public sector.

Does that answer your question?

[schmid215]

I'm still not clear on this one. I picked (D) pretty easily, but it really does not seem like a necessary assumption in light of the fact that the second to last sentence is stated as fact/stands alone, which entails that (D) is true. The last sentence, on the other hand, relies on the the second to last sentence for support, with a notable gap of the old employees being better than whoever they have been replaced by. What's even more frustrating is that I swear the equivalent of (D) has been a wrong answer choice on a NA question before.

[coco.wu1993]

Same question as above.

The sentence "Government will be able to recapture these capable administrators by raising salaries..." entails D to be true. Therefore D cannot be an "assumption" made by the argument.

[maryadkins]

I agree. And so my response is: It's PrepTest 3. Never think about this question again and learn nothing from it.

You're both thinking exactly right.

[WaltGrace1983]

I agree. And so my response is: It's PrepTest 3. Never think about this question again and learn nothing from it.

You're both thinking exactly right.

haha! LOVE IT. I always try to make myself feel better when I get early PT questions wrong by saying that. There is, however, still a lot to learn from these Q's even if they are ultimately weird and sometimes even a little skewed. However, I agree and disagree with some of the discussion happening here. Here is how I will interpret the argument:

Many experienced and capable govt. administrators have quite their jobs and taken positions in the private-sector
+
Public sector will raise salaries to a comparable level of the private sector
→
Govt. will be able to recapture these experienced and capable govt. administrators
→
Functioning of the public agencies will be improved

I see this argument as having two conclusions. There is an intermediate conclusion and a final conclusion. This question thereby actually entails two gaps.

Gap #1: Who is to say that having a comparable salary will entail that they return? What if they left because the hours are better and they would never return regardless of salary. Thus, we must make the assumption that these experienced and capable govt. administrators would return to the public sector.

Gap #2: Who is to say that these experienced and capable returners will improve the functioning of public agencies? What if the new young guns are doing an amazing job and having the oldies come back will hurt the functioning. Thus, we must assume that the net benefit of functioning is greater with the experienced and capable returners than the net benefit of the other guys who took their jobs originally.

I think if you approach the question like this, the answers become a lot easier to sift through. Now the LSAT will be able to attack either one of these two gaps, but it looks like it focuses on the first one.

(A) This tries to attack gap #2. Maybe it is not the experience gained that will be valuable. Maybe the experience is not valuable at all. Plus what is this idea of "value?" Will "value" contribute to a better functioning? Can it be possible that there was no valuable experience gained and yet the public agency will function better? Absolutely. Thus, this is a wrong answer for a necessary assumption.

(B) This tries to attack gap #2. We simply don't need to say that the most important factor is experience. Maybe the capable and experienced govt. administrators were good because of their drive. Maybe drive is the most important factor. We can still get to the conclusion without assuming what (B) entails so (B) is wrong.

(C) This doesn't attack any gap. We are talking about disparity in pay here and how it will "continue to increase." Who cares? This has no bearing on the argument. It could increase 40x but the argument would remain the same.

(E) This is similar to (C). Do we know if the disparity in pay will increase? The argument actually tells us that it will probably decrease as the public agencies are trying to match the private agencies. Let's throw this one out.

Let's examine (D).

Many experienced and capable govt. administrators have quite their jobs and taken positions in the private-sector
+
Public sector will raise salaries to a comparable level of the private sector
+
People who moved from jobs in government administration to private sector management would choose to change careers again
→
Govt. will be able to recapture these experienced and capable govt. administrators

Does this close the gap? Nope. Does it need to? Nope. Yet it does help and it does absolutely need to be concluded. How do we know this? We know this from the negation test.

Many experienced and capable govt. administrators have quite their jobs and taken positions in the private-sector
+
Public sector will raise salaries to a comparable level of the private sector
+
People who moved from jobs in government administration to private sector management would not choose to change careers again
→
Govt. will be able to recapture these experienced and capable govt. administrators

Uhhhhhhh...so the conclusion cannot be true if we are given the negation of (D). Absolutely not. How can the agencies be able to recapture those specific people if those specific people are not willing to change careers again?! They cannot. Thus (D) is correct.

Same question as above.

The sentence "Government will be able to recapture these capable administrators by raising salaries..." entails D to be true. Therefore D cannot be an "assumption" made by the argument.

I don't know if I agree with this.

[tommywallach]

Hey Walt,

Sorry, but Mary is right. This question is idiotic, and shouldn't really be discussed. I agree that answer choice (D) is stated pretty clearly in the second to last sentence. It states definitively that government will be able to recapture these administrators. We know that isn't the conclusion of the argument, because that sentence is used to support the final sentence, which is the overall conclusion. This question is ridiculous.

-t

[nandy_millette]

I agree. And so my response is: It's PrepTest 3. Never think about this question again and learn nothing from it.

Sorry, but Mary is right. This question is idiotic, and shouldn't really be discussed.

I dunno about that, analysing this question is a good exercise in indentify prescriptive arguments in my opinion. I only recently started intensively drilling NA so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

To me this argument can be described as a Prescriptive Argument. Which is what I think mattsherman suggested.

Good question! The position taken in the stimulus is less an argument than a belief.

The author describes some situation and then suggests what someone should do, or what is appropriate to do to solve the problem for the good/better/best of the situation. The big flaw with these arguments is the assumption that the prescription WILL /CAN work.

Knowing what type of argument this is and knowing what type of NA to expect made my POE easy. The correct answer choice for this type of argument would SHEILD/DEFEND the premise by SHOWING THAT IT WORKS/CAN WORK thereby allowing us to make the conclusion.

Answer choice A was easily eliminated because it has no impact on the author's prescription which is that the Government will be able to recapture the employees by raising salaries.

Answer choice C and E are Premise Boosters

Answer choice E is incorrect because 1) it has no impact on the author's prescription and 2) Its too strong. Would this be a correct answer choice if this where a Sufficient Assumption Question?

Answer choice D is correct because it suggest that the author's prescription (raising salaries) CAN WORK because workers are interested in changing careers again. I agree that it does not show that they will actually be persuaded by the salaries but it does increase the possibility that the author's prescription (increased salaries) can work.

Is my reasoning off?

[ohthatpatrick]

I'll actually stick up for Walt's interpretation.

Because the 2nd sentence is a prediction, it's a fact, not an opinion. Thus, it's fair game to be attacked.

However, you would still call the 2nd sentence the Intermediate Conclusion, since the last sentence's prediction is predicated on the 2nd sentence.

It's not quite Prescriptive in my book, because there's no wording like "should / ought / must", but I see how conversationally you could interpret this person as endorsing these predictions or you could interpret these predictions as resulting from this author's prescriptive ideas.

I wouldn't write off (A) because it's irrelevant to whether or not we'll get back the people who left. Again, the 3rd sentence is the Main Conclusion, so that would typically be our primary focus. I think some people would be persuaded by (A) because if people left the govt., worked in the private, learned a great deal from the private, and then returned to govt., that could explain the "improved functioning".

But it's not NECESSARY to explain it. Even if the people who moved to private did NOT learn a ton from their experience in the private sector, their return to the public sector could still improve functioning from where it was without them.

(B) is too extreme. Experience doesn't need to be THE MOST IMPORTANT factor. It could be 2nd most important and it still might be true that getting more experienced workers back improves functioning.

(C) the author never makes a prediction that hinges on the pay disparity widening more.

(E) same as (C), but this makes another specific prediction about whether EVEN MORE would leave the private. The author's two predictions relate to people re-joining the private sector, so those positions don't logically presuppose anything about what happens if more people LEAVE the private sector.

(D) is integral to the author's prediction in the 2nd sentence. By claiming that increased salaries will bring back these lost employees, the author is logically committed (logically presupposes) that some people who changed career [from private to public] will be willing to change back.

Part of what makes this question weird (but not inaccurate or idiotic, in my opinion) is that it refers to the stimulus as "a position", not an argument, not as reasoning.

Thus, it's not necessarily about the gap or move from one idea to another.

The first sentence is a fact that already happened, so that can't be construed as the author's 'position'. But the 2nd and 3rd sentences are predictions, so they collectively constitute the author's 'position'. The way the question is worded, we don't have to think of this as a Necessary Assumption question. It certainly COULD have dealt with the link between the 2nd and 3rd sentence. But if I simply say "The Miami Heat will win the NBA championship next year", that position presupposes that "The Miami Heat will reach The Finals next year".

Hope this helps.

[bernard.agrest]

Necessary Assumption questions ask us to find the gap between the premise and the conclusion. Differentiate between sufficient by thinking of an arrow (the assumption). If the arrow is fully shaded (or over shaded) when you add the assumption - that is, if it guarantees the outcome - then it is the sufficient assumption. If the arrow is shaded in a little bit more - that is, if it doesn't guarantee anything, BUT is REQUIRED for the conclusion - then it is a necessary assumption.

OK, this is an N/A question and this is the way I understood it.

Premise: large disparity over the past few years in salary have driven experienced and capable gov administrators to private sector jobs.

Conclusion: Gov will be able to recapture these capable administrators by raising salaries up to a comparable level.

A) Experience gained will NOT be very helpful. Well, so what? They still have their old experience.

B) The most important factor is NOT the amount of experience they have. Again, so what, you don't need decades on the job to be a whiz at it, some people are gifted like that naturally.

C) Irrelevant.

D) There it is. People would NOT choose to switch back. Well now we have a problem. How can we expect to RECAPTURE these administrators if they aren't willing to come back.

E) Disparity does NOT increase. Well, does not increase does not exclusively mean decrease, it could just stay the same and that means there will be no reversal.

[bigtomhan]

I agree. And so my response is: It's PrepTest 3. Never think about this question again and learn nothing from it.

You're both thinking exactly right.

haha! LOVE IT. I always try to make myself feel better when I get early PT questions wrong by saying that. There is, however, still a lot to learn from these Q's even if they are ultimately weird and sometimes even a little skewed. However, I agree and disagree with some of the discussion happening here. Here is how I will interpret the argument:

Many experienced and capable govt. administrators have quite their jobs and taken positions in the private-sector
+
Public sector will raise salaries to a comparable level of the private sector
→
Govt. will be able to recapture these experienced and capable govt. administrators
→
Functioning of the public agencies will be improved

I see this argument as having two conclusions. There is an intermediate conclusion and a final conclusion. This question thereby actually entails two gaps.

Gap #1: Who is to say that having a comparable salary will entail that they return? What if they left because the hours are better and they would never return regardless of salary. Thus, we must make the assumption that these experienced and capable govt. administrators would return to the public sector.

Gap #2: Who is to say that these experienced and capable returners will improve the functioning of public agencies? What if the new young guns are doing an amazing job and having the oldies come back will hurt the functioning. Thus, we must assume that the net benefit of functioning is greater with the experienced and capable returners than the net benefit of the other guys who took their jobs originally.

I think if you approach the question like this, the answers become a lot easier to sift through. Now the LSAT will be able to attack either one of these two gaps, but it looks like it focuses on the first one.

(A) This tries to attack gap #2. Maybe it is not the experience gained that will be valuable. Maybe the experience is not valuable at all. Plus what is this idea of "value?" Will "value" contribute to a better functioning? Can it be possible that there was no valuable experience gained and yet the public agency will function better? Absolutely. Thus, this is a wrong answer for a necessary assumption.

(B) This tries to attack gap #2. We simply don't need to say that the most important factor is experience. Maybe the capable and experienced govt. administrators were good because of their drive. Maybe drive is the most important factor. We can still get to the conclusion without assuming what (B) entails so (B) is wrong.

(C) This doesn't attack any gap. We are talking about disparity in pay here and how it will "continue to increase." Who cares? This has no bearing on the argument. It could increase 40x but the argument would remain the same.

(E) This is similar to (C). Do we know if the disparity in pay will increase? The argument actually tells us that it will probably decrease as the public agencies are trying to match the private agencies. Let's throw this one out.

Let's examine (D).

Many experienced and capable govt. administrators have quite their jobs and taken positions in the private-sector
+
Public sector will raise salaries to a comparable level of the private sector
+
People who moved from jobs in government administration to private sector management would choose to change careers again
→
Govt. will be able to recapture these experienced and capable govt. administrators

Does this close the gap? Nope. Does it need to? Nope. Yet it does help and it does absolutely need to be concluded. How do we know this? We know this from the negation test.

Many experienced and capable govt. administrators have quite their jobs and taken positions in the private-sector
+
Public sector will raise salaries to a comparable level of the private sector
+
People who moved from jobs in government administration to private sector management would not choose to change careers again
→
Govt. will be able to recapture these experienced and capable govt. administrators

Uhhhhhhh...so the conclusion cannot be true if we are given the negation of (D). Absolutely not. How can the agencies be able to recapture those specific people if those specific people are not willing to change careers again?! They cannot. Thus (D) is correct.

Same question as above.

The sentence "Government will be able to recapture these capable administrators by raising salaries..." entails D to be true. Therefore D cannot be an "assumption" made by the argument.

I don't know if I agree with this.

Great answer!

I used to attack the gap 2 and never thought there could have been 2 gaps...

[pewals13]

Premise:
-Because of large pay disparities many good government employees have jumped into the private sector.
-Government will be able to recapture these good employees by making public sector salaries comparable.

Conclusion:
-Recapturing good employees who jumped to the private sector will improve the functioning of government agencies.

The position taken above presupposes which one of the following?

(A) Experience gained from private sector management will be very valuable in government administration.
EXPLANATION: This answer choice is wrong because it doesn't absolutely have to be true for the author's position to hold. The term "improve" is inherently relative, so the government agencies might experience improvement from a performance dip after their good employees left for the private sector, we don't have to assume that these good employees further improved during their time in the private sector to assume that their return to an agency results in the improved functioning of that agency. Also, does the experience HAVE to be "very" valuable?

(D) People who moved from jobs in government administration to private-sector management would choose to change careers again.
EXPLANATION: The position taken by the author "presupposes" this will occur--while this appears to boost a premise, it is clearly the best answer. If people who moved from the public sector to the private sector would NOT choose to change careers again--the author's position cannot hold true.