#13 - Many economists claim that financial rewards provide

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (C)

Note the introduction to this stimulus: “Many economists claim…” This is a common device used by the test to introduce an argument with which the author will disagree. Here the economists claim that financial rewards are the strongest incentive for choosing a job. The author disagrees with this assertion in the last sentence by concluding that these economists “overestimate” how important money is to choosing a job. To weaken the author’s argument, we need to strengthen the economists’ argument, i.e. we need to show that financial rewards may still provide the strongest incentive for people to choose one job over another.

Let’s look at the author’s argument more closely. His premise is that most people do not name high salary as the most desirable feature of a job, from which he concludes that people do not primarily consider money in choosing a job. Notice how the conclusion here is much broader than the premise: “money/financial rewards“ is a broader concept than simply “salary.” There could be other financial considerations beyond just salary (e.g. bonuses, sales commissions, health insurance, 401(k), etc.).

This is a common weakness in Logical Reasoning stimuli. The argument is open to attack because the author fails to consider outside information. Just because one monetary consideration (salary) is not the most desirable feature of a job does not mean that monetary considerations generally are not the most desirable feature.

Answer Choice (A): This is an Opposite Answer as it strengthens the argument. This answer choice shows a limitation on high salary and may provide a reason why financial considerations are not the most important feature in choosing a job.

Answer Choice (B): Be careful with this very tempting answer choice. It states that people prefer a high-wage job to an identical job with lower wages. In other words, this answer choice suggests that salary matters for many people when choosing a job. If the author had suggested that salary is entirely irrelevant in choosing a job, this answer choice would certainly weaken that argument. However, the author tried to convince us that salary is not the most important factor in choosing a job, not that it is entirely unimportant. This is a Shell Game answer, weakening a conclusion that is similar to—but substantially different from—the conclusion contained in the stimulus.

Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice presents the idea that there are many other financial considerations in addition to salary. So, even though salary considerations may not be the most important consideration when choosing a job, other financial considerations could still make money the most important factor. This answer choice strengthens the economists’ argument, thereby weakening the author’s position.

Answer Choice (D): This answer choice appears to strengthen the author’s argument, rather than weaken it, and so is another example of an Opposite Answer. Answer choice (D) suggests that “challenge” is an important feature of a job, which may suggest a possible alternative to money as the most important factor in choosing a job. This would strengthen the author’s conclusion that money is not the most important factor.

Answer Choice (E): Similar to answer choice (A), this answer choice suggests a possible reason why salary is not the most desirable feature of a job. Once again, this would strengthen the author’s argument rather than weaken it.

[nickd]

[Question content removed by Admin]

The answer is C) Jobs that pay the same salary often vary considerably in their other financial benefits.

However, I am perplexed because the argument I am understanding to weaken is "This shows that these economists overestimate..." which this answer would strengthen to me, or in the least not weaken because there is no financial difference so would have no bearing on the economists position.

I chose B) In many surveys, people say that they would prefer a high-wage job to an otherwise identical job with lower wages.

This to me supports the economists decision and weakens the conclusion that they are overestimating the degree to which people are motivated by money in their job choices.

If someone could shed some light on what I am missing that would be fantastic. Thanks!

[Steve Stein]

The author's conclusion is that economists overestimate the motivation of money in people's job selections--that the economists are wrong to say that financial rewards provide the strongest incentive for people to choose one job over another.

In order to weaken the author's conclusion, we need to find the answer choice that shows that financial rewards do provide the strongest incentive (in spite of the fact that surveys don't usually show salary to be the most desirable feature of a job).

Correct answer choice C provides that salary is not the only component of financial reward. Thus, even though people don't always list salary as the most desirable feature, it is still could be the case that the referenced economists are right--that financial rewards provide the strongest incentive to choose one job over another.

The problem with answer choice B is that it doesn't help to prove that financial rewards provide the strongest incentive to choose one job over another. This choice only proves that money is one incentive--that all else equal, people prefer to be paid more rather than less.

Good question! Let me know if everything's clear--thanks!

[nickd]

Ahhhh I see, salary vs. financial rewards are two different things. Reading error. Thanks!

[ronnieronnie]

Hey Guys,

I fell for answer choice (B) just as many other people did. Could you guys explain why answer choice (C) is correct?

Thanks
ROnnie

[Nikki Siclunov]

The author argues that financial rewards do not necessarily provide the strongest inventive for people to choose one job over another, because most people do not name high salary as the most desirable feature of the job. You should have immediately noticed that the conclusion shifts the focus from "financial rewards" to "high salary," which is a flaw in the reasoning: a high salary is a financial reward, but there may be other types of financial rewards that matter even more than one's salary.

Answer choice (B) states a preference for higher-paying jobs, all other things being equal. If the author had argued that salary does not matter at all in which job you choose, then yes - (B) would weaken the argument. The thing is, the stimulus never suggested that wages are entirely irrelevant to your career decisions; they are just not the most relevant feature of a job. This is a classic Shell Game answer, weakening a similar (but different) conclusion to the one expressed in the stimulus.

Answer choice (C) is correct. If jobs that pay the same salary often vary in their other financial benefits, this would imply that financial rewards may still provide the strongest incentive for people to choose one job over another, even if high salary is not named as the most desirable feature of a job.

Let's take two jobs with identical salaries (say, $160K/year), one of them offering stock options worth $1M and the other offering no additional financial benefits. If people named stock options as the most desirable feature of their job, they still considered financial rewards to be the strongest incentive, even though the reward named was not "high salary."

[Frank]

Hey

I'm curious about the reasoning behind this weaken question. I had narrowed it down to B and C but I chose B because the stimulus cites a survey so I thought that another survey that demonstrates people selecting a higher paying job over a lower paying job when the work is identical would most weaken the argument based on the initial survey.

Any help with why it is C? When it comes to strengthen and weaken questions I seem to narrow it down to two or three answer choices and then I usually pick the wrong one? I feel like my pre phase isn't very strong for these questions.

Thanks for your help

Frank

[Robert Carroll]

Frank,

Answer choice (B) is tempting, but the conclusion of the author of the stimulus is that the economists are wrong. They are wrong to say that financial rewards provide the strongest incentive for people to choose one job over the other. The author argues that, instead, money is not as big a factor as the economists claim. The problem with answer choice (B) is that, even if it were true, it wouldn't tell us whether money is the most important factor - in the survey cited in that answer, people preferred a high-wage job to a lower-wage job that was otherwise identical. Think about it; even a person who values the other aspects of a job over the financial rewards would probably agree to do the exact same job for more money! So answer choice (B) does not give us relevant information about whether people value other aspects of jobs that are not identical.

Answer choice (C) exposes the weakness of the author's argument - high salary is not the same as financial reward, as there may be other financial rewards besides salary that would affect people's choice of job.

Both answer choices superficially contained information that would weaken the author's conclusion, so it's natural to have these as two contenders. Answer choice (B) is a Shell Game answer, though - it looks right and has reasoning similar to what I'd expect in my prephrase, but the conclusion it's attacking isn't the one in the stimulus! It doesn't give me any information for the economists or for the author, because I can't tell how highly people value salary, general financial rewards, or other aspects of a job with the information contained in answer choice (B). The author never argued that financial rewards, or salary, were totally unimportant, just that they weren't all-important like the economists thought. So knowing that people would gladly be paid more for the exact same job doesn't tell me what I need.

Let me know if you have any further questions!

Robert Carroll

[akanshalsat]

Hi! I completely get why C is correct, but even after reading the previous responses, I don't quite get why B can be disqualified... If two jobs are identical and we choose the higher paying one, then obviously this shows that money was the most important factor considered right?

[James Finch]

Hi akanshalsat,

The issue with (B) is that it controls for one variable, high/low salary, while the stimulus is actually making an argument that other things, such as fringe benefits or location, are more important to people's job choices than money. So (B) ends up comparing only high and low salaries, when in order to weaken the conclusion it would need to compare, as an example, a high-salary low-benefits job to a low-salary high-benefits job.

Hope this clears things up!