Logical reasoning PrepTest 151 · Section 3 · Question 19

Incorrect. While this answer aligns with our anticipation, it's too strong to be necessary. The conclusion is just about "many" workers, so an answer about all workers isn't necessary.

Incorrect. This answer is the opposite of what is necessary for the argument to work. For the maximum wage law to have an impact, CEOs have to make more than 50x their lowest-paid employee, and this says some earn less than that. We can't infer from some earning that that others earn more.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), this answer is too strong since it talks about all CEOs, and the stimulus reaches a conclusion about only many workers.

Incorrect. This answer mentions changing the wages, whereas the stimulus discusses not cutting it. This answer rules out raising the wages, which isn't necessary for the argument to be valid.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Some CEOs try to increase profits (and their salaries) by cutting worker wages. A maximum wage law would remove this incentive. So a maximum wage law for CEOs of 50x the lowest-paid employee's salary would protect many low-paid employees from wage cuts.

Answer Anticipation:
For this maximum wage law to work, it must apply to current wage disparities. If the wage gap between the lowest-paid employee and a CEO is never more than 35x, then the law won't do much. Also, the conclusion is very weak ("many" workers), so the correct answer can't be too strong.

Answer Explanation:
This answer isn't close to our anticipation, and we had to battle through some tempting answers to get here. It also has a very direct connection to the language in the stimulus, which we don't expect in question 19. However, the conclusion is about this law protecting the wages for many employees, so it's necessary that at least some CEOs wouldn't cut wages if the law were enacted, so this is the answer.

Key Takeaway:
Sometimes your anticipation will be completely off! That's fine. Stay flexible, and don't' shy away from answers if they seem too close to the stimulus, as long as they draw a new connection that is needed for the argument to work.