#9- Museum visitor: The national government has mandated a 5

[Albertlyu]

thanks Rachael.

[treyrg]

Hi everyone!

Apologies if this question was answered, but I went through everything and am still having some trouble.

So, I chose (B), and I know that/why it's wrong - I just wasn't satisfied with the other answer choices and went with something due to time. Looking at it later, the Negation Assumption Technique helped me understand pretty quickly why it's wrong.

That said, I am still having a bit of trouble with (A). The way I understand the argument is this:

P: A 5% increase in minimum wage paid to all workers was mandated by the national government.
P: The museum's revenue does not currently exceed its expenses.
P: The mandate will significantly increase the museum's operating expenses.
P/IC: The museum will be forced to either raise admission fees or to decrease services.
C: So, the mandate will adversely affect the museum-going public.

If I am right about the argument's structure, then it seems that I need an answer choice that, when negated, would weaken the link between the mandate being enforced and the mandate affecting the museum-going public.

I think I am getting tricked up by figuring out whether or not the question is a Defender or Supporter. I know that a gap in the argument would indicate that the stimulus is a Supporter, and it feels like there is a gap in the argument here. That said, the correct answer choice (A) is phrased in a way that makes me think it's a Defender. So, my two questions are as follows:

(1) Is this a Defender or Supporter?
(2) More generally, is it possible to have a stimulus that is a Supporter or Defender while having a correct answer choice that is the other? So, for instance, can Q9 here have a Supporter stimulus while the correct answer is a Defender?

I feel like the answer to (2) is no since a Supporter stimulus is in need of assistance, and it does not seem that Defenders fill the gaps well. That said, I am not understanding this question, and it feels to me that the stimulus is in need of support while the correct answer wards off a potential attack of the argument. Maybe it does both?

I'm kind of surprised that this is the question that is getting me to post on here for the first time because it's definitely not the hardest one I've gotten wrong, but I am just not getting it. Maybe I'm overthinking it.

[Poonam Agrawal]

Hi Trey!

Thanks for posting this question - definitely an important idea to add to the discussion!

Let me start by addressing your second question first. The terms "Supporter" and "Defender" refer to assumptions missing from the argument - they are actually not really ways to classify the stimulus itself. A Supporter Assumption is a statement that links together new/rogue elements in the stimulus, thereby filling in a logical gap in the argument. Here is an example of a Supporter Assumption:

Stimulus: I can't anything that is made with milk. Therefore, I cannot eat ice cream.
Supporter Assumption: Ice cream is made with milk. (The rogue element is ice cream - we must connect it back to milk.)

Defender Assumptions, on the other hand, simply protect the argument by providing defenses against possible avenues of attack. Example:

Stimulus: A study showed that people who exercised more were happier. Therefore, exercise can lead to greater happiness.
Defender Assumption: The people in the study were all single. (The avenue of attack this is guarding against is that marriage status can affect people's happiness that would have confounded the results of the study).

So, to answer your second question - you wouldn't really have a Supporter/Defender stimulus, because these ideas refer to missing assumptions. A stimulus is just a stimulus - we want to find any assumption that will make the argument stronger, and that can be in the form of a Supporter Assumption or Defender Assumption.

As for your first question, let's phrase it this way: is answer choice (A) a Supporter Assumption or a Defender Assumption?

We know now that Supporter Assumptions fill in logical gaps in the argument, most frequently through connecting rogue elements in the stimulus. As you've identified, there does seem to be a logical gap in the stimulus. The gap can be found in these two statements:

1.) Government mandate increases minimum wage by 5%
2.) The mandate will significantly increase museum's operating expenses

Therefore, the missing link in our argument is that there must be some employees that are not currently earning at least 5% more than the old minimum wage. This is the only way for the mandate to significantly increase the museum's operating expenses, which is what answer choice (A) gives us.

Hope that helps clarify the idea of Supporter vs. Defender Assumptions a little more!

[treyrg]

That was incredibly helpful!! Thank you so much, Poonam!!

[PresidentLSAT]

I understand the negation of C supports the conclusion which isn't what we want. I also wanted to understand the logic behind it.

My reason for ruling out C was that if some means an unspecified amount. It could be that out of 124 employees, 123 are paid more. The remaining two could be earning way more than the more that the 123 are earning-hence not necessary.

[Adam Tyson]

That's true, PresidentLSAT! "Some" just means any amount greater than zero, so it could be just one person, but it also could be ALL of them (so all 124 is possible, not just 123). I know that conflicts with our common usage of the word "some" - if they meant all, they would have said all, right? - but from a logical perspective, if all of them make more than minimum wage, then it is true that some of them (more than zero) do. "Some" includes the possibility of "all." Remember that, as it will be tested again and again!

The real problem with answer C is, of course, that the answer would, if true, hurt the argument rather than help it. The author doesn't have to assume something that conflicts with their position!

[SGD2021]

(1) Hello, if we are looking to close a missing link in an assumption question like this, it seems this question proves that the link can sometimes be between two premises instead of between the conclusion and premise, correct? In that case, if we come across a stimulus like this where it’s a bit difficult to decide what is the conclusion, if we notice the gap between any two statements, should we just focus on that gap and move on or is it imperative to find the conclusion?

(2) Could you possibly clarify once more why it is okay for the correct answer to question a premise if we are usually supposed to take the premises as true? Following up on what a previous powerscore tutor answered in this chain, is it ALWAYS the case that, if we have what may seem like an unreliable narrator, we can choose an answer that questions a premise?

(3) Also, what is a good technique for choosing the correct conclusion in a stimulus like this? I had trouble deciding whether the conclusion was “This mandate will adversely affect the museum going public” or “the museum will be forced either to raise admission fees or to decrease services.”

(4) Additionally, can we always follow this technique? If you have two negatives like “none are not…” that is always equivalent to saying “all ARE” since two negatives make a positive?


Thank you very much!

[Adam Tyson]

Generally, you should be looking at gaps between the conclusion and the premises, but there can be cases where the gap addressed by the assumption is between a premise and a sub-conclusion, and occasionally between two premises. That's rare, but it can happen. Always start your analysis with the main conclusion.

I'm not sure what you mean about questioning premises. This is an Assumption question, not a Weaken question, so the correct answer should support, rather than undermine, the argument. If you are referring to the negation test, if a negated answer choice conflicts with a premise, that would be a good answer, because a premise turning out to be false would harm the argument. The author must believe that their premises are true!

When trying to determine which of two statements is the main conclusion, ask yourself which one supports the other. The one giving support cannot be the main conclusion, because main conclusions are the end of the argument and support nothing further. In this case, the claim about needing to raise fees or cut services supports the claim that there will be an adverse effect on the public, showing that the adverse effect is the main conclusion and raising fees is not. That claim was a subordinate conclusion.

[Snomen]

I have a question about the negation of the answer choice A... A state: " Some of the museum's employees are not paid significantly more than the minimum wage." My reasoning is when we negate this answer choice "some" becomes "none". "None of the museum's employees are not paid significantly more than the minimum wage". This leaves us with double negation that is actually means "all of the museum's employees are paid significantly more than the minimum wage". Am I right?

[Adam Tyson]

Correct, Snomen! That's why the negation ruins the argument. A rise in the minimum wage would not, in that case, make a difference! They are all already making way more than that!