#19 - Valitania's long-standing practice of paying high

[Adam Tyson]

Exactly! Once the only evidence provided is removed, the conclusion is unsupported. Even if it's true, the argument is structurally unsound!

[pelusolakes]

Hello!

I would greatly appreciate some additional clarification on this question.

The argument that the author makes is that high salaries for politicians (in Valitania) attracts people who are more interested in money than they are in public service.

Answer choice E tells us that the majority of Valitanian politicians could have obtained better-paid work outside politics. If answer choice E is correct, then we accept that a person who is primarily concerned with their own financial interests would not run for office if they could obtain better-paid work elsewhere.

This seems to me to be patently false. A person who is primarily interested in their own financial interests might choose to forgo better-paid work if they judge that running for office might serve their financial interests in other ways: perhaps they will attempt to advance a political agenda that will be (financially) beneficial for them in the long-run - perhaps they will attempt to deregulate the industry to which they owe their fortune; perhaps they will attempt to lower taxes for the wealthy, or for high-income earners; perhaps they will attempt to build connections with powerful people, connections that they believe will come in handy and make them money in the future.

For these reasons, while C is not a perfect answer, as has been explained in this thread, it still seems to me to be less flawed than answer choice E.

Any clarification on how the LSAC-makers think - on how I could have avoided making this mistake - would be greatly appreciated!

Elisa

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi pelusolakes,

We need to take the answer choices as they are and look at the impact they have on the argument.

This argument is that because the high salary offered to politicians in Valentina attracts the wrong people to the job, resulting in people only in it for the money.

We are looking then, for something that breaks down the connection between money and attraction to the job.

Though I know you read already why answer choice (C) fails, it doesn't impact that connection at all. It just talks about the number of people attracted, not the motivation of those it attracts. It's talking about a different issue (the ability to attract candidates) instead of the issue in the stimulus (what type of candidates are attracted to the job).

For answer choice (E), if it's true that the candidates could get higher-paying jobs elsewhere, it weakens that connection between attraction to the job and money. There could be other things about the job that make it attractive, but the argument was specifically related to salary, and this answer choice is specifically addressing that aspect of the argument. It's not about overall financial benefits, it's specific to making money/salary.

Hope that helps!