#13 - University administrator: Graduate students

[Adam Tyson]

Correct! Well done!

[Agent00729]

Hi! I'm struggling to see how B is incorrect here. Aren't benefits a component of a compensation package? I assumed that if they both receive the same compensation, that means the same benefits.

[Adam Tyson]

That's the attractive trap of that answer choice, Agent00729! The problem with that view is that it overlooks that "benefits" and "compensation" are not interchangeable terms. There are some benefits that do not necessarily fall under the heading of "compensation," except perhaps indirectly. Perhaps benefits include access to the faculty lounge? Permission to use computer facilities to conduct research? A parking space? Collective bargaining rights?

The other problem with that answer is that it never addresses the claim in the last sentence of the stimulus about whether Graduate Assistants would have their jobs in the first place. The author is claiming that they are different from university employees because they are only given their jobs to help them fund their educations, and answer B doesn't address that.

[tessajw]

If the TA's should be entitled to the same benifits as the regular employees then how is employing more of them cheaper and better for the economy than employing usual employees?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi tessajw!

Answer choice (C) states, "The university has proposed that in the interest of economy, 10 percent of the faculty be replaced with teaching assistants." Just to clarify, this is saying that it's in the interests of "economy," not "the economy." In other words, it's saying that 10 percent of the faculty will be replaced in the interests of saving money. To your question, presumably teaching assistants make less money than faculty members. If that's correct, then replacing 10 percent of the faculty with teaching assistants would seem to save money.

[fulla2024]

A question that I have is one of the basic things I learned when it comes to the LSAT is to accept the premises as true, but here the question or the AC is attacking the AC which is confusing me, because is my thought process wrong? or is there a certain time when we don't accept premises is true? or is there a difference, because I see attacking and rejecting the premises as the same thing.

[Robert Carroll]

fulla2024,

This is a Weaken question. We are perfectly allowed to attack the premises. For a Flaw question we certainly don't want to attack the premises, but then, for a Flaw question we're not attacking anything, as we're merely trying to point out what's wrong with the argument. For a Weaken question it is always 100% allowed to attack the premises.

Robert Carroll