- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:54 pm
#104203
Complete Question Explanation
Strengthen, Principle. The correct answer choice is A.
The stimulus contains an argument. The first two sentences are premises stating that the average CEO is paid many more times than the average worker at the same company even though no CEO works many time harder than the average worker. The conclusion then states that the high pay of CEOs is "wholly unjustified."
It is always important to recognize when new information is presented in the conclusion of an argument regardless of what type of question is being asked. Here the idea that the high pay of CEOs is "wholly unjustified" is new information that has not been discussed. There is a logical gap in this argument between the CEOs being paid many times the average worker without working many times harder and the CEO's pay being wholly unjustified.
This is a strengthen principle question. The words "most helps to justify" in the question stem indicate a strengthen question. A principle question is simply a modifier or overlay of another question type. A principle is "a broad rule that specifies what actions or judgments are correct in certain situations." In this question, each answer is a principle and we're looking for the principle that helps close the logical gap in this argument.
Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This answer states that at any given company, pay should be proportional to how hard they work. Since the premises tell us that CEOs do not work many times harder than the average worker, then this principle would indicate that CEOs should not be paid many times more than the average worker. Since the premises also indicate the average CEO is paid many more times than the average worker, then CEOs are being paid much more than they should be according to this principle and therefore their pay is "wholly unjustified" according to this principle.
Answer Choice (B): This answer focuses on pay being proportional to how much a person contributes to the overall success of a company. The idea of contribution is different than the idea of how hard someone works. For example, it is quite possible (perhaps even probable?) that a CEO may contribute much more to the success of a company than the average worker even though the CEO isn't necessarily working much harder simply because the CEO is making decisions/policies that affect the entire company while the average worker may only be working on one small component of the company.
Answer Choice (C): This answer focuses on pay being proportional to how much a person needs to sustain a reasonably comfortable lifestyle. This idea of reasonably comfortable lifestyle is not mentioned in the stimulus and is therefore irrelevant to the argument. It's important to not make assumptions about how much is needed to sustain a reasonably comfortable lifestyle, such as assuming that the average worker does or does not make that amount or that the CEO does or does not make that amount. All we know in the stimulus is the average CEO's salary relative to the average worker's. We don't know for certain that the CEO's salary is not reasonably proportional to what they need to sustain a comfortable lifestyle. It could be possible, for example, that a CEO's salary is not too high relative to a comfortable lifestyle, but that the workers are paid way too little.
Answer Choice (D): This answer advocates for equal pay for the same work. Since the CEO and the average worker do not perform the same work (by definition), this answer is also irrelevant.
Answer Choice (E): This answer states that people who can work hard should do so. The argument never states that anyone (either CEOs or the average worker) is or is not working hard in an absolute sense, so this answer is also irrelevant. All that we know based on the stimulus is that no CEO works many times harder than the average worker, but this does not mean that these CEOs are not working hard in a general/absolute sense. The conclusion of the argument that the high pay of CEOs is wholly unjustified isn't based on the CEOs not working hard, but simply on the fact that they make many times more than the average worker even though they don't work many times more than the average worker.
Strengthen, Principle. The correct answer choice is A.
The stimulus contains an argument. The first two sentences are premises stating that the average CEO is paid many more times than the average worker at the same company even though no CEO works many time harder than the average worker. The conclusion then states that the high pay of CEOs is "wholly unjustified."
It is always important to recognize when new information is presented in the conclusion of an argument regardless of what type of question is being asked. Here the idea that the high pay of CEOs is "wholly unjustified" is new information that has not been discussed. There is a logical gap in this argument between the CEOs being paid many times the average worker without working many times harder and the CEO's pay being wholly unjustified.
This is a strengthen principle question. The words "most helps to justify" in the question stem indicate a strengthen question. A principle question is simply a modifier or overlay of another question type. A principle is "a broad rule that specifies what actions or judgments are correct in certain situations." In this question, each answer is a principle and we're looking for the principle that helps close the logical gap in this argument.
Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This answer states that at any given company, pay should be proportional to how hard they work. Since the premises tell us that CEOs do not work many times harder than the average worker, then this principle would indicate that CEOs should not be paid many times more than the average worker. Since the premises also indicate the average CEO is paid many more times than the average worker, then CEOs are being paid much more than they should be according to this principle and therefore their pay is "wholly unjustified" according to this principle.
Answer Choice (B): This answer focuses on pay being proportional to how much a person contributes to the overall success of a company. The idea of contribution is different than the idea of how hard someone works. For example, it is quite possible (perhaps even probable?) that a CEO may contribute much more to the success of a company than the average worker even though the CEO isn't necessarily working much harder simply because the CEO is making decisions/policies that affect the entire company while the average worker may only be working on one small component of the company.
Answer Choice (C): This answer focuses on pay being proportional to how much a person needs to sustain a reasonably comfortable lifestyle. This idea of reasonably comfortable lifestyle is not mentioned in the stimulus and is therefore irrelevant to the argument. It's important to not make assumptions about how much is needed to sustain a reasonably comfortable lifestyle, such as assuming that the average worker does or does not make that amount or that the CEO does or does not make that amount. All we know in the stimulus is the average CEO's salary relative to the average worker's. We don't know for certain that the CEO's salary is not reasonably proportional to what they need to sustain a comfortable lifestyle. It could be possible, for example, that a CEO's salary is not too high relative to a comfortable lifestyle, but that the workers are paid way too little.
Answer Choice (D): This answer advocates for equal pay for the same work. Since the CEO and the average worker do not perform the same work (by definition), this answer is also irrelevant.
Answer Choice (E): This answer states that people who can work hard should do so. The argument never states that anyone (either CEOs or the average worker) is or is not working hard in an absolute sense, so this answer is also irrelevant. All that we know based on the stimulus is that no CEO works many times harder than the average worker, but this does not mean that these CEOs are not working hard in a general/absolute sense. The conclusion of the argument that the high pay of CEOs is wholly unjustified isn't based on the CEOs not working hard, but simply on the fact that they make many times more than the average worker even though they don't work many times more than the average worker.
