Q19 - Economist: The wages of many of the

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: the wages of many of the lowest-paid corporate employees in this country would be protected from cuts by the maximum wage law prohibiting executives from earning, for example, 50 times what their corporation's lowest-paid employees make. Premise: some executives cut pay and benefits of low-wage employees to increase profits and their own salaries. Intermediate conclusion: the law would remove the incentive to do so.

Answer Anticipation:
When an argument in an Assumption family question concludes that an action would have a particular effect, we should begin by thinking of objections. What might get in the way of this legislation protecting these employees? Maybe if it didn't apply to them. If no corporate executives would try to make more than 50 times what their lowest paid employees make, this law wouldn't help anyone. We also might object that just because these laws would remove one incentive for bosses to cut wages doesn't mean the law would actually protect wages. Maybe no one wants to cut wages in this country anyway.

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
(A) The "All" is a red flag right out of the gate. Necessary Assumption questions almost never use totality quantifiers. Do we need to assume that some low-paid employees work at companies where the laws would protect them from wage cuts? Definitely. But do we need to assume that they all do? Nope, and if you submit an answer to the negation test, you'll see why. Negate statements of totality by showing one non-conforming case. So, there's one guy who's the lowest-paid guy at his corporation, and his boss makes 49 times his wage. Does that destroy the argument? Not by a long shot.

(B) If anything, this weakens the argument, because it shows a set of low-paid employees that probably won't be helped by the law. It's tempting, though, because it is almost the negation of our prediction. We need some corporate execs to make more than 50 times what the lowest-paid workers make, or at least for that to be something they might try to achieve by cutting wages.

(C) The "No" is a red flag right away, so we want ask ourselves if one non-conforming case would ruin this argument. If one exec would raise wages without the law, so what? We're not even really concerned with raising wages: we just need to prove the law will protect wages from being cut.

(D) Do we need to assume that without these laws, execs would never change wages? No way. The "never" should give us pause and make us, once again, think up a non-conforming case. If the law was in place and executives raised wages, would that mess up the argument? Nope, so this one is incorrect.

(E) Answer choice E can be a lot to parse. It's conditional: If laws --> at least one exec wouldn't cut pay and benefits. To negate that, we need a case that fulfills the sufficient condition but not the necessary: the laws are enacted but no execs choose not to cut pay and benefits. Well, if that were to be the case, the law isn't protecting wages, so that blows up our argument and is therefore the correct answer.

Takeaway/Pattern:
The hardest Necessary Assumption questions can be really tough to predict, so don't worry too much if you don't have a specific prephrase moving into the answer choices. Just make sure you understand the argument and try to articulate gaps in reasoning. Rely on degree trends (Necessary Assumption right answers tend not to have a strong degree) to help you make quick eliminations, and the negation technique to help you confirm them. To negate statements of totality, show one non-conforming case. To negate conditional statements, show a case of the sufficient condition happening but the necessary condition not.

#officialexplanation