Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 4 · Question 2

Incorrect. The Executive ties salary/benefits to seniority, not to position or variety of positions, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Evaluation

Stimulus Summary:
P: The 20% average pay difference between the programmers and technical writers is unfair/intolerable, so we demand a raise.

ME: Salary/benefits are based on seniority, and many of those writers have been here longer, so it's fair.

Answer Anticipation:
When a second speaker rebuts the argument of the first, it's important to see if the second speaker is shifting any key terms. Here, the Programmer discusses the differences in the average pay of programmers and technical writers. However, the Executive shifts to discussing that "many" technical writers have more seniority than "many" programmers. That doesn't address the average, though, as the average programmer could have seniority over the average technical writer. Just because the most senior tech writers have more seniority than the most junior programmers doesn't address this average. In the case where, despite a few more senior tech writers the average for them is lower, the Executive's argument would prove the Programmer's position.

So to evaluate this argument, we need to know the average seniority levels of the technical writers and programmers—if it's about the same or the programmers have more seniority, then the Executive's own rule about seniority determining pay would lead to conclude that the pay is unfair. If the technical writers have more average seniority, then the pay scheme does follow that rule and could be considered fair.

Answer Explanation:
The Executive claims that salary is tied to seniority, and so the 20% pay gap is fair. If the tech writers have more seniority on average, then the argument is solid; if they don't, then the argument is bad. This answer highlights a piece of information needed to apply the Executive's rule about salary to the situation being discussed, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever a second speaker rebuts the argument of a first, make sure that there are no shifts in what's being discussed. Here, moving from the "average" salary of programmers and tech writers to the seniority of "many" of these employees meant that the Executive didn't actually address the point raised.

Incorrect. The debate over salary discrepancy won't be resolved whether benefits are tied to salary, everyone gets the same benefits, or there's some other means of them being determined, so this answer doesn't provide clarity to the Executive's rebuttal.

Incorrect. An answer to this question might highlight a potential bias on the part of the Executive but it wouldn't address her argument. Thinking that a bias on the part of the Executive would, by itself, be relevant would see you committing an ad hominem flaw!

Incorrect. An answer to this wouldn't help much, as the Executive presumably has seniority over the programmers who work under her.