Logical reasoning PrepTest 110 · Section 2 · Question 13

Incorrect. The conclusion of the argument is that LF economics is "not entirely" accurate not that it's completely inaccurate so the argument doesn't need to establish or assume anything more than it having a single incorrect prediction.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
LF Economics: Increasing the minimum wage decreases the number of minimum—wage jobs

Study: A recent increase in the minimum wage resulted in no drop in fast—food minimum wage jobs
Conclusion — LF Economics is wrong on at least one thing

Answer Anticipation:
The Essayist here attempts to rebut a general claim through the use of a counterexample. However, the general claim here isn't something that applies to all minimum—wage jobs individually—it applies to the total number of minimum wage jobs.

As such, bringing up one industry and showing that an increase in the minimum wage didn't decrease the number of minimum—wage jobs doesn't serve as a counterexample, because the fast food industry is just one area where there are minimum wage jobs. LF Economics could still be right in believing that an increase in that wage results in a loss of minimum—wage jobs if other industries saw a decline in jobs.

In other words, it's possible that the impact on minimum—wage jobs in the fast food industry isn't representative of other areas. This could be viewed as a Sampling Flaw or a Part vs. Whole Flaw. In either case, the argument is assuming that what is true in the fast food industry is true of all minimum—wage jobs.

Answer Explanation:
This answer is an assumption the argument requires—that the industry it looked at (fast food) is indicative of the effect a minimum wage has on minimum—wage jobs across the economy. If the fast food industry isn't representative, then the fact that it didn't see a drop in jobs with an increase in the minimum wage can't be applied economy—wide and LF Economics could be correct about the overall effect of increasing the minimum wage.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument uses a subset of a certain category to prove a point about the larger category, it's assuming that the subset is representative of the category as a whole, or that part of the whole has the same characteristics as the whole. These two flaws (Sampling; Part vs. Whole) do share some overlap!

Incorrect. The argument doesn't require that there isn't a single study out there ("No study has ever . . . ") backing up the opposing point just that the reality of the situation shows that the LF economics prediction on minimum wage isn't always correct.

Incorrect. What matters is the minimum wage and minimum wage workers, not the "average" wage. If the minimum wage increased this answer suggests that the restaurants would fire some of the higher—paid employees or lower their wages and that's wholly out of scope of the argument.

Incorrect. This answer can be tempting. However, the argument cares about only minimum—wage jobs, not all jobs, so this answer is too broad in talking about the overall unemployment rate to be required