Q8 - Economist: During a recession, a company

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Answer choice (D) is tempting, huh? It's probably the most tempting of the incorrect answers. It's tempting for a reason too, and the test-writers use this a ton to make tempting answer choices on Strengthen questions.

Answer choice (D) supports a premise, but that can't be used to "strengthen the reasoning." We already assume the premises are true. We want to support the conclusion reached on those premises.

The argument says that because layoffs damage morale less than reducing wages, companies are likely to reduce personnel costs through layoffs. Answer choice (A) is nice in that it makes the evidence relavent by saying that it's the primary concern. It's not tough to see this as supporting the conclusion and that probably wasn't something the LSAT writer was trying to conceal. It was more about forcing you to decide between (A) and (D), waste time, and rattle you a bit since you wouldn't be certain by the time you had to move on.

(B) is out of scope since increasing wages is not up for discussion.
(C) is out of scope. Profits are not being discussed.
(D) is tempting and supports the evidence (Premise Booster), but not the argument's reasoning.
(E) would weaken the argument that layoffs would be the best way to go for companies.

Does that answer your question?


#officialexplanation

[todavidzheng]

Could someone please explain why D can not strengthen the argument?

[Mab6q]

I have a question about questioning the premise here, as you suggested. Is the fact layoffs damage is less only a premise or an intermediate conclusion. It seems the like the latter to me, and as such we could argue that the relationship there is flawed.

Now, I understand that this problem is pretty clear cut and it isn't wise to be dwelling in the relationship between a premise and an intermediate conclusion when the main core has a bigger issue, but I was just wondering how you guys saw that statement.

Thanks.

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks Mab6q! I agree! That layoffs cause more damage is an intermediate conclusion supported by the fact that the aggrieved personnel have left.

--Rina

[krisk743]

Just to clarify...premise I get are the booster, but they're also the reasoning, no? The premise is the reasoning that the author uses to reach the conclusion.

So technically, wouldn't "helping a premise" ultimately help the conclusion as well?

I chose A over D, but still noticed that in your writing.

Answer choice (D) is tempting, huh? It's probably the most tempting of the incorrect answers. It's tempting for a reason too, and the test-writers use this a ton to make tempting answer choices on Strengthen questions.

Answer choice (D) supports a premise, but that can't be used to "strengthen the reasoning." We already assume the premises are true. We want to support the conclusion reached on those premises.

The argument says that because layoffs damage morale less than reducing wages, companies are likely to reduce personnel costs through layoffs. Answer choice (A) is nice in that it makes the evidence relavent by saying that it's the primary concern. It's not tough to see this as supporting the conclusion and that probably wasn't something the LSAT writer was trying to conceal. It was more about forcing you to decide between (A) and (D), waste time, and rattle you a bit since you wouldn't be certain by the time you had to move on.

(B) is out of scope since increasing wages is not up for discussion.
(C) is out of scope. Profits are not being discussed.
(D) is tempting and supports the evidence (Premise Booster), but not the argument's reasoning.
(E) would weaken the argument that layoffs would be the best way to go for companies.

Does that answer your question?


#officialexplanation

[NanaN402]

Is it safe to say that D would actually be more of a weakener for this question? If the argument needs us to take the goal of "choosing layoffs over cutting wages" as the main point we need to strengthen, wouldn't D inherently be going against that by giving a reason as to why we should instead consider cutting wages? My thought process on this one was, "well if cutting wages means people will resign anyway, can't we technically say that this is now an attractive solution over layoffs because people resigning is additional means of cutting personal costs that come with the initial reduction of wages and if this is the case, this sounds better than laying people off, so this seems like a weakener."

Not sure if I am thinking about this incorrectly, but am curious to know how A and D can be distinguished strongly if stuck between these two choices.

[Misti Duvall]

Is it safe to say that D would actually be more of a weakener for this question? If the argument needs us to take the goal of "choosing layoffs over cutting wages" as the main point we need to strengthen, wouldn't D inherently be going against that by giving a reason as to why we should instead consider cutting wages? My thought process on this one was, "well if cutting wages means people will resign anyway, can't we technically say that this is now an attractive solution over layoffs because people resigning is additional means of cutting personal costs that come with the initial reduction of wages and if this is the case, this sounds better than laying people off, so this seems like a weakener."

Not sure if I am thinking about this incorrectly, but am curious to know how A and D can be distinguished strongly if stuck between these two choices.

Hmm, I'm not I see (D) as weakening the conclusion, which is that companies are likely to choose layoffs over a reduction in wages. We don't have any information in the stimulus about how resignations affect overall employee morale. And it doesn't matter, since the premises tell us that layoffs are the better morale option anyway.

Regardless, an easier way to distinguish (A) and (D) is to only ask yourself: does this answer make the conclusion more likely? Answer choice A does, because if employee morale is the primary concern, it strengthens the idea that companies will choose layoffs.

Hope this helps.