Private industry is trying to attract

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: acknowledgement2% picked this

   Government research scientists are less likely to receive acknowledgment for their research contributions than are research scientists

   The author doesn't have assume that "chances of notoriety" are an additional advantage of switching to the private sector. This is a good example of an answer that strengthens but isn't necessary. If we negated this and said, "Nah, they're just as likely to get famous for their research by staying in the public sector", that wouldn't hurt the author's argument. She is thinking, "all other things being equal, they get paid more in private, so they'll head there." She does have to assume, "scientists are not way more likely to receive acknowledgement if they stay in the public sector", because negating that would turn into an objection.

   2%
2. B

   Too Strong: None21% picked this

   None of the research scientists currently employed by the government earns more than the highest-paid researchers employed

   The author's statement was that "most research scientists employed in the private sector earn 50% more than their public sector counterparts", but she didn't say all. It wouldn't hurt her argument if there are some cases where the public sector scientist makes more than their private sector counterpart. And so it wouldn't matter if the highest-paid scientist in the country was employed by the government. It wouldn't change the fact that most government scientists are "underpaid" relative to their peers.

   21%
3. C

   Too Strong5% picked this

   The government does not employ as many research scientists who are highly skilled as does any large company in the private

   Too Strong: any large company Out of Scope: # of scientists Nothing in the argument talks about quantity of scientists. It doesn't make any difference if the government currently employs a higher / lower / similar # of highly skilled scientists. Whatever the current comparison is of number of employees, the author is just saying that over time it's going to tilt more and more in the direction of the private industry.

   5%
4. D

   Correct71% picked this

   The government does not provide its research scientists with unusually good working conditions or fringe benefits that more than compensate for

   Why this is right

   Whenever we're doing Necessary Assumption, we're extremely attracted to answer choices that are ruling out an idea using "not / no" language. We try negating them and see if they become an objection. Would it hurt the argument to say, the govt does provide its scientists with unusually good working conditions / fringe benefits that more than compensate for the lower salaries? Yes! The author is assuming that government scientists are going to be motivated by higher salaries to leave their jobs and work in the private sector. She's failing to consider possible ways in which the government job might be more appealing (sure, lower salary, but the working conditions or fringe benefits more than make up for that!)

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   71%
5. E

   Weakens1% picked this

   Research scientists employed in the private sector generally work longer hours than do researchers employed

   This would be a disadvantage of switching to a private sector job (more hours), so this would hurt the author's argument. Since "better hours" might be a compelling reason for people to stay in their government science jobs, a correct answer could have said: Research scientists employed in the private sector do not work significantly longer hours than do researchers employed by the government.

   1%