Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S2 · Q16 Private industry is trying to attract

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Private industry is trying to attract skilled research scientists by offering them high salaries.

Conclusion (So)

(assuming government-employed research scientists motivated by their own interests at least as much as by a sense of public duty), the government is likely to lose its most skilled research scientists to private industry.

Evidence (since)

None of these scientists would have problems finding private-sector jobs. Private industry is trying to attract skilled research scientists by offering them high salaries. Most research scientists employed in private sector jobs earn 50% more than comparably skilled government (public sector) workers.

Evaluate

Our author is essentially thinking that if government research scientists are motivated primarily by their own interests, they will leave their government jobs in order to make 50% more at private sector jobs.

So if we were trying to weaken this argument, we might say,

Maybe what most interests a certain research scientist is colonizing Mars, and she's more convinced that she can impact that quest via the government's infrastructure and funding than via Elon Musk's private sector attempts.

Goal

Essentially, the author is assuming that , so she's concurrently assuming, .

16.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  1. Government research scientists are less

    Out of Scope: acknowledgement

    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% picked this

  2. None of the research scientists

    Too Strong: None

    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% picked this

  3. The government does not employ

    Too Strong

    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% picked this

  4. Correct

    The government does not provide

    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% picked this

  5. Research scientists employed in the

    Weakens

    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% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free