Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 3 · Question 13

Incorrect. There being a potential ulterior motive for making an argument doesn't invalidate that argument—someone can be right and hiding their true motives.

Incorrect. Without knowing more about these adjunct professors—are they relevantly similar to the TAs in areas such as expendability—it's impossible to know if this answer affects the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Grad students Ð TAs should be considered employees and thus get benefitsAdmin Ð Yes, they work and receive money for that work. But if they could afford their education, we wouldn't hire them, so the sole reason they have jobs is to let them fund their education and thus they shouldn't be considered employees.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is a bit convoluted, but it has an opposing argument that is then rebutted. That rebuttal is an argument with an intermediate conclusion ("the sole reason . . . ") and a main point, so we need to look for potential answers at each step of the argument.

First off, the intermediate conclusion. The Administrator establishes that the TAs wouldn't be offered jobs if they could otherwise afford their education, so helping them pay for school is the "sole" reason that they're hired. Is there a jump there—could there still be other reasons they're hired? Sure—after all, there are other ways to allow grad students to afford their education (stipends; lower tuition; provide free housing). The premise here establishes a reason to provide jobs, and then concludes it's the sole reason (even if it is a necessary reason). One potential line a correct answer could take is raising other reasons for employing the TAs.

Second, even if they are only hired to let them pay for their education, does that mean they shouldn't be considered employees and thus not entitled to benefits? Not at all—that's relying on a principle the argument doesn't establish. The argument's assuming that when someone is hired for a reason unrelated to their employment (here, to let them afford education), then they shouldn't be considered employees.

Either answer calling these assumptions into question will be correct, so let's stay flexible.

Answer Explanation:
The Administrator says that the school employs these grad students for "the sole purpose" of allowing them to fund their education, and they otherwise wouldn't have their TA jobs. This answer suggests that there's another reason to hire the TAs—to replace other faculty members to save money, thus calling that "sole purpose" into question.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments with intermediate conclusions can be weakened by undermining either the intermediate conclusion or the main conclusion, so stay flexible and look for assumptions that support either.

Incorrect. This answer might be tempting in suggesting that the TAs can cover their education costs using the stipend instead of their TA pay, but this answer just states that they can cover tuition—the cost of education includes much more than that (books, living expenses, etc . . . ).

Incorrect. The Administrator doesn't argue that the work being done isn't valuable—just that they're being paid to fund their education and they wouldn't be if that weren't an issue.