Q8 - When companies' profits would otherwise

[irene122]

Could anyone please explain what's the "otherwise" are for in the stimulus? I understand the stimulus except for the "otherwise"...

Does "otherwise" mean:

if increase minimum wage, then profts will reduce;
if not increase minimum wage, then profits will not reduce?

I pause everytime seeing "otherwise". Could anyone please explain the use of "otherwise" in Logical reasoning?

Thanks a lot!

[maryadkins]

We're asked to explain the paradox here. First we ask: What's the paradox? Well!

When an increase in min wage is going to lower profit, companies often cut jobs. (To your question, the "otherwise" doesn't do much here... it's just saying "in the absence of the job cuts" but the sentence means the same thing without it. Try reading it without "otherwise." Means the same thing.)

But the min wage increased and the fast-food industry didn't cut jobs even though most of its workers are min wage.

This is our paradox.

(A) explains it. They're saving enough on recruiting costs to compensate for the increase in wages, so they're not actually losing profit.

I pause everytime seeing "otherwise". Could anyone please explain the use of "otherwise" in Logical reasoning?

One way to think about it is, "If that other thing didn't/doesn't happen, this [whatever comes before or after 'otherwise'--that is, what it's referring to] would." But like I said above, often this either-or kind of situation is just as clear without the word in there. So if you get confused, try just taking it out and seeing if the sentence makes more sense. OR, trying replacing it with, "But if ____ doesn't happen..."

[shirando21]

Can you explain D?

and if "a few" is replaced with "most", would D work?

[timmydoeslsat]

Can you explain D?

and if "a few" is replaced with "most", would D work?

It would contradict what was stated in the stimulus that most workers in the fast food industry earn minimum wage.

[Nina]

i understand why A is the correct answer, but just cannot quite get what's wrong with answer B. To me it sounds like offering another reason why this industry cannot cut off jobs.

Thanks for help!

[griffin3575]

Essentially, B is irrelevant to the paradox.

Notice what B says:
increase MW leads to many lost jobs --->supervisors also lose jobs

In order to resolve the paradox, we must choose an answer that allows the stimulus to exist without a contradiction. If you look closely, B does not relate to the fast food industry discussed in the stimulus. The stimulus tells us that the increase in minimum wage DID NOT DECREASE fast food jobs. Therefore, B, which talks about an increase in minimum wage that DID DECREASE jobs, doesn't relate to our paradox and thus cannot resolve it. B is essentially referencing a different group of people than the stimulus.

[magic.imango]

Is (D) wrong because it contradicts the stimulus?

The argument states that "most" workers are paid the minimum wage but (D) claims that a "few" already earn above minimum wage.

[maryadkins]

Is (D) wrong because it contradicts the stimulus?

The argument states that "most" workers are paid the minimum wage but (D) claims that a "few" already earn above minimum wage.

(D) doesn't contradict the stimulus because you can have most making min wage and still have a few who aren't. The problem with (D) is that it doesn't explain why this paradox is happening. So what, a few people make more than minimum wage? Most don't. But they didn't get fired when the minimum wage was increased. WHY NOT? We need an answer that answers that.

(C) and (E) don't help explain the paradox, either.

Great explanation of (B), above!

[PepitoH243]

Whoever did this do not know anything about fast food companies. Hiring new employees is a piece of cake and it doesn't cost anything.