Logical reasoning PrepTest 125 · Section 2 · Question 9

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
The minimum wage is going up 5%. Since the museum's revenue equals its expenses, this raise is going to force them to raise fees or decrease services, hurting museum-goers.

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus here makes a prediction about the particular effects on the museum-going public of a given change. Those effects largely stem from the impact on the museum's budget. Since that museum currently spends as much as it takes in, any additional expense will result in the museum needing to make it up somehow. It seems reasonable that this means the museum either needs to raise more revenue or spend less money, so the flaw must be between the change noted—the raise in the minimum wage—and the impact on the budget.

Does a raise in the minimum wage mean the museum's operating expenses will increase? Not at all—if the museum already pays everyone more than 5% over the minimum wage, then this change wouldn't affect them. Therefore, the argument must be assuming that there are at least some museum workers who are making within 5% of the minimum wage.

Note that this argument has a tricky structure in that it uses the word "Since"—a premise indicator—to introduce an intermediate conclusion. The mandate increasing the minimum wage supports that the mandate is increasing the museum's operating expenses, assuming that they don't pay much above minimum wage. Noting that this was an intermediate conclusion was key to seeing that there was an assumption being made in supporting it. Remember that intermediate conclusions are premises, too, and thus they can be introduced with premise keywords.

Answer Explanation:
This answer addresses the assumption of the argument. For the mandate to increase the museum's operating expenses, it must be the case that some people are currently making right around minimum wage and thus would have their wages increased by the mandate. If all of the employees are paid significantly more than minimum wage, then the argument falls apart—so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever a change is noted and a prediction is made based on that change, make sure that the change actually affects the situation it's being applied to. Here, there was a jump between an increase in minimum wage and an increase in the museum's operating budget.

Incorrect. Revenue could have gone up and down over the past few years and they could still be running razor-thin margins that require changes to address any new, significant expense.

Incorrect. This answer is the opposite of what we're looking for. The argument relies on workers not making more than minimum wage, not being paid at higher rates.

Incorrect. The number of visitors doesn't matter. What matters is how that translates to expenses and revenue, and the stimulus notes that they're essentially at parity.

Incorrect. The Visitor raises the possibility of increasing admission fees to address any raise to the minimum wage. This could happen even if everyone is currently paying admission—they'd just be paying a higher amount.