#6 - Economist: As should be obvious, raising the minimum

[est15]

Can you explain why (D) is incorrect and (A) is incorrect? I thought (D) was right because if workers are already earning more than the minimum wage, raising it wouldn't necessarily cause unemployment then.

[Ron Gore]

Hi Est,

Answer choice (D) is incorrect because it deals only with "most" workers, not all workers. If (D) told us that all workers already make more than minimum wage, then it would destroy the conclusion, since there are no employees who would be affected by the increase in minimum wage. However, since it only deals with most workers, it becomes irrelevant to the conclusion. The argument isn't about these employees who already make more than minimum wage, because the increase won't have impact on their employment. Instead, the argument is about those employees who currently make less than minimum wage.

Answer choice (A) attacks the conclusion because it tells us that the argument improperly assumes that the employer will have to eat the cost of the increased wages. Since the employer will just pass the cost on to the consumer, then the employer will not necessarily have to get rid of employees, weakening the conclusion.

Thanks,

Ron

[actionjackson]

I'm having some trouble with this question specifically and weaken questions more generally. I took the conclusion in this argument as saying that increased minimum wages will cause an increase in unemployment because of the subsidiary conclusion that businesses could not afford to continue to employ as many workers. As such I categorized this argument as causal in nature and inappropriately chose answer choice D which seems to me as the purported cause without the effect. I feel like my thinking on logical reasoning is all wrong and considering I'm retaking the LSAT next week, I'm getting a considerable amount of anxiety from weaken questions, and largely stimuli including argumentation. My powerscore tutor recommended that I look over chapter 4 in the course book, but weaken questions (chapter 3) are my real bugaboo and I have already completed chapter 3.

[David Boyle]

I'm having some trouble with this question specifically and weaken questions more generally. I took the conclusion in this argument as saying that increased minimum wages will cause an increase in unemployment because of the subsidiary conclusion that businesses could not afford to continue to employ as many workers. As such I categorized this argument as causal in nature and inappropriately chose answer choice D which seems to me as the purported cause without the effect. I feel like my thinking on logical reasoning is all wrong and considering I'm retaking the LSAT next week, I'm getting a considerable amount of anxiety from weaken questions, and largely stimuli including argumentation. My powerscore tutor recommended that I look over chapter 4 in the course book, but weaken questions (chapter 3) are my real bugaboo and I have already completed chapter 3.

Hello actionjackson,

I doubt your thinking on logical reasoning is as bad as you think it is! It may just be pre-test jitters.
Even though the question is causal, that does not ipso facto mean that answer D is correct, for the reasons that Ron mentions above. (D is not the worst answer--since it helps prove that many employees can receive minimum wage without the economy collapsing--, but it isn't the best answer.)
Your tutor may have recommended you look at chapter 4 because Strengthen questions (and similar types like Justify, etc.) are sort of the flip side of Weaken questions, so that you might get a better understanding of Weaken questions thereby. In fact, many of the causal things that people do to weaken (find an alternate cause, etc.) are done with Strengthen questions, just in a reverse way (eliminate alternate causes, etc.).
Of course, feel free to do all the Weaken questions you can reasonably do, whether in the coursebook homework, or in practice tests, or elsewhere.

Hope this helps,
David

[avengingangel]

I struggled with -A because it seems to be contradicting a premise (which you are always supposed to take as fact, yes?). Even though the 2nd sentence in the stimulus is a subsidiary conclusion, it's a still a premise that the conclusion rests on for support, right?? So, I feel like A cannot be right because the stimulus flat out tells you - the businesses cannot pay for the same amount of people. Can someone pleas help me out here? This also brings me to the larger question, "Does one take intermediate conclusions as fact?"
Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Intermediate conclusions are fair game for weaken questions, angel! In this case, that is exactly why we are picking answer A, because it attacks the link between the first premise and the intermediate conclusion. We typically accept the premises as true, and focus on the link between the premises and the conclusion, but sometimes the best answer is the one that goes after a premise. When it does, it doesn't usually directly contradict that premise, just saying it's false, but instead brings in some new information that makes us question the premise. That's what happened here - new info about passing on higher costs makes the intermediate conclusion less likely to be true, and that undermines the main conclusion because it means the main conclusion is resting on a weak or even false premise.

I wish we had as clear a rule to follow as "all premises are to be taken as absolute fact", but we don't. Usually that's the right approach, but sometimes it isn't. Practice with this test will lead to greater familiarity and recognition of patterns, and that will help you to figure out when it is okay to go after a premise and when it isn't.

Good luck!

[djokly]

Hi Est,

Answer choice (D) is incorrect because it deals only with "most" workers, not all workers. If (D) told us that all workers already make more than minimum wage, then it would destroy the conclusion, since there are no employees who would be affected by the increase in minimum wage. However, since it only deals with most workers, it becomes irrelevant to the conclusion. The argument isn't about these employees who already make more than minimum wage, because the increase won't have impact on their employment. Instead, the argument is about those employees who currently make less than minimum wage.

Answer choice (A) attacks the conclusion because it tells us that the argument improperly assumes that the employer will have to eat the cost of the increased wages. Since the employer will just pass the cost on to the consumer, then the employer will not necessarily have to get rid of employees, weakening the conclusion.

Thanks,

Ron

Hello.

I find it difficult to believe A to be a convincing answer bc it could be that the way companies pass off the cost of increased wages to consumers involves laying some workers off.

Could someone explain why this counter point is not valid or at least unimportant in answering this question? I guess A is the most convincing answer, but it still seems very weak.

Thank you very much.

[Dana D]

Hey Djokly,

The way a company passes the increased cost to consumers means businesses raise prices on their goods. If we were talking about McDonald's, for example, and they didn't want to raise prices on their menu but the minimum wage was raised, they would likely fire employees to maintain current menu prices. However, if instead McDonald's decided to pass these increased overhead costs to us consumers, that means we would see a price increase on the menu. Maybe McDonald's also fires workers, maybe not, but the link between increased wages and unemployment gets weaker because with answer choice (A) we now know that business are more likely to just increase prices to offset increased wages rather than to respond with layoffs.

Hope that helps!