#17 - In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North

[desmail]

Hi,

For answer choice B, I assumed that even though an employee has worked at a company for over 10 years he still could be getting valuable experience to compensate for a low salary, so I didn't choose this answer and instead chose A.

Now I see why A is wrong, because the author claims "any" shortfalls that "might" exist, but seniors may not have shortfalls in salary so then none of that would apply.

So why is my assumption for answer choice B wrong? An executive at a job could still be getting valuable training right?

Thank you!
Dana

[Steve Stein]

I think one could reasonably argue that these reporters continue to get valuable experience with each assignment, but this is slightly different from "training" to be a journalist; after ten years working at a major newspaper it seems unlikely that the average worker would still be deriving significant benefit in the form of "on-the-job-training."

And if a someone told you that they were still in training and, incidentally, that they had been with the company for ten years, there would probably be some follow-up questions!

Really interesting question--please let me know whether this is clear. Thanks!

~Steve

[desmail]

Thanks Steve!

[ltowns1]

Are they referring soley new employees when they say "the valuable training they receive through their assignments"? I just assumed they were referring to any employee whether they were new or whether they worked for ten years? And if it that was the case, I assumed that telling us about how long they worked there was irrelevant to whether they could still get valuable training. Looking back, I can see how it was a reach to assume that people working ten years wouldn't want more than just valuable training.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi ltowns,

It's fair to make an assumption that people who are ten years into a career would not need significant training. Certainly, it would be fair to assume that the value of any training at that point would not make up for a much lower salary. From the perspective of an employee, if answer choice (B) is true, would you find the executive convincing? I know I wouldn't. Remember that weaken answer choices aren't required to destroy an argument. They just have to make it less likely. Training is less likely to be a fair justification for lower wages if most of the employees have more than 10 years experience.

Hope that helps!

[ltowns1]

Hi ltowns,

It's fair to make an assumption that people who are ten years into a career would not need significant training. Certainly, it would be fair to assume that the value of any training at that point would not make up for a much lower salary. From the perspective of an employee, if answer choice (B) is true, would you find the executive convincing? I know I wouldn't. Remember that weaken answer choices aren't required to destroy an argument. They just have to make it less likely. Training is less likely to be a fair justification for lower wages if most of the employees have more than 10 years experience.

Hope that helps!

Thank you!