Q5 - Barnes: The two newest employees at this company

[lsataddict]

I don't understand why "C" is correct. I put "B." Any explanation is appreciated.

[nbayar1212]

I think I got this one wrong too when i was taking the practice but if you take a second and not over think the stimulus, you'll realize why C is a necessary assumption.

Barnes basically says that the new employees (which really only means recent hires) are paid too much and the things that they are assigned are too hard for new employees to do. He therefore thinks the company should reduce their pay and change their tasks.

Well, this might be true if the new employees are marketing interns but what if the new employees are mechanical engineering PhDs from Berkeley? Couldn't it be the case, then, that their pay and tasks are just right?

Barnes is simply assuming here that new means inexperienced but it could simply just mean recent hires, which leads us to answer choice C; he needs to assume that the two employees are not experienced.

[monygg85]

So let me make an attempt at going over answer B. I got this question right but couldnt find a solid reason to completely eliminate B.

(B) posits a cause and effect relationship between salaries and complex duties (it begins by saying "It is because of..."). There is no causal relationship, from what I'm seeing, in the stimulus. It simply concludes that the salaries and complexities of the duties of the 2 hired employees should be reduced, no reference to cause/ effect.

There may be other things wrong with the stimulus too, if there are, feel free to add on or correct my thoughts on this if needed!

[nbayar1212]

I think if we think about a necessary assumption question requiring an answer choice that strengthens the conclusion of the stimulus, we can pretty easily eliminate B.

B weakens Barnes' reasoning because it explains that there is a reason for the high salaries being paid to the new employees. That can't be a necessary assumption because 1) if you negate it, Barnes' argument still functions and 2) it weakens Barnes' argument so it can't be necessary for it.

I do, however, see where you are getting the cause-effect analysis from but I think remembering that this is a necessary assumption question helps side-step that kind of analysis all together in this case.

[WaltGrace1983]

I'll try to help continue to break this question down. This is a necessary assumption question so let's find the core.

Two newest employees have...

salaries that are too high, higher than what we pay new employees for the simple tasks we normally assign to them
+
duties that are too complex for inexperienced workers
→
We should reduce their salaries and simplify their tasks

This argument is comparing what "usually" happens to what is happening here. We have these two new employees and these two new employees are simply doing things that are much too complex for inexperienced workers to be doing and they are making much more than other new employees. Thus, we should reduce the salaries and complexity of the tasks. The problem though is that this argument is assuming that the workers are either inexperienced or completing simple tasks. What if they are doing neither? If they were experienced, wouldn't this help justify the complexity of their tasks? If they were doing tasks that were much more complex than what new employees typically do than wouldn't this help justify their salaries?

(C) Gets at one of these assumptions. If they are experienced, then this would help justify why their tasks are so much more complex.

[christine.defenbaugh]

I'll try to help continue to break this question down. This is a necessary assumption question so let's find the core.

Two newest employees have...

salaries that are too high, higher than what we pay new employees for the simple tasks we normally assign to them
+
duties that are too complex for inexperienced workers
→
We should reduce their salaries and simplify their tasks

This argument is comparing what "usually" happens to what is happening here. We have these two new employees and these two new employees are simply doing things that are much too complex for inexperienced workers to be doing and they are making much more than other new employees. Thus, we should reduce the salaries and complexity of the tasks. The problem though is that this argument is assuming that the workers are either inexperienced or completing simple tasks. What if they are doing neither? If they were experienced, wouldn't this help justify the complexity of their tasks? If they were doing tasks that were much more complex than what new employees typically do than wouldn't this help justify their salaries?

(C) Gets at one of these assumptions. If they are experienced, then this would help justify why their tasks are so much more complex.

Beautifully done WaltGrace1983!

Let me add a quick spin through the various wrong answers:
(A) This answer is worded in a way that is difficult to parse, but we can see that it compares the new employees to others in the company. Since we don't need to assume anything about how these new employees relate to others in the company, this is an irrelevant comparison.
(B) This answer is tempting primarily because it is a connection we might make between the premises while reading. But, as nbayar1212 pointed out, this connection is not necessary to the author's argument. In fact, as it offers a reason for the salary, it could arguably weaken it.
(D) Look carefully! This is about Barnes, the author of the argument! We don't care what his salary is.
(E) We don't need to assume anything what other companies do.

I hope this helps!

[BarryM800]

I'm really confused by the argument. The premise actually contains two pieces of information: on one hand, the two newest employees are paid too high for the "simple tasks normally assigned to new employees"; and on the other, their "duties are too complex for inexperienced workers." I thought "tasks" and "duties" are of the same concept. How can they be both "simple" and "complex" at the same time? Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

I'm really confused by the argument. The premise actually contains two pieces of information: on one hand, the two newest employees are paid too high for the "simple tasks normally assigned to new employees"; and on the other, their "duties are too complex for inexperienced workers." I thought "tasks" and "duties" are of the same concept. How can they be both "simple" and "complex" at the same time? Thanks!

I think tasks and duties could be a little different. Duties are generally broader, while tasks are generally specific activities. Regardless, something can be both simple and complex depending on the context.

For ex, walking is a simple task for most adults, but too complex for infants.