Barnes: The two newest employees

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: maximum complexity6% picked this

   The duties of the two newest employees are not less complex than any others

   If their duties are not less-complex, then their duties are at least as complex as every other employee in the company. Did this author need to assume that these newest employees have the most complex duties (or tied for the most complex duties) at this company? No, that's way too strong. The author only is saying that their duties are too complex for inexperienced workers. She isn't claiming that they are at maximum complexity.

   6%
2. B

   Unsupported Causal Relationship16% picked this

   It is because of the complex duties assigned that the two newest employees are being paid more than is usually

   Our common sense would probably speculate that the new employees are being paid a lot because of their complex duties. But the author never implies a causal relationship between the two. In a sense, by complaining about both things separately, the author is closer to betraying a blind spot for the fact that these two could be causally connected. If we negated this answer and said, "the reason they're being paid more than usual isn't because of the complexity of their duties", that wouldn't hurt the author's argument. He can still be like, "I don't care why they're being paid that much. They're being paid too much for a new employee."

   16%
3. C

   Correct74% picked this

   The two newest employees are not experienced at

   Why this is right

   This has the lovable ruling-out "not" that we see in so many correct Defender answers. When we see these, we negate them and see if the negation would weaken. Would it hurt the argument if we said, "Hey, author -- these two newest employees are experienced at their occupations"? Sure! Our author was griping that the duties assigned to these new employees are "too complex for inexperienced workers". We can say, "Yeah, but these two aren't inexperienced workers." The author was assuming that these new employees were similar to most new employees: inexperienced, and thus deserving of simple tasks and lower pay.

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

   74%
4. D

   Out of Scope: Barnes1% picked this

   Barnes was not hired at a higher-than-average

   Who is Barnes?, you might be wondering. Oddly, this answer is referencing the name of the speaker who is saying this stimulus. There's never been a correct answer that has hinged on reading or noticing who is saying a stimulus. It's an irrelevant part of the stimulus. We're judging the ideas, not the source of the ideas. In the real world, we might be like, "Shut up, Barnes. Of all the people to complain about people getting paid too much, you should not be. You'd be a real hypocrite, given that you started off being paid too much". But that's not an LSAT objection. Being a hypocrite about something doesn't make you wrong about that thing. If Donald Trump chastised Joe Biden for lying, we don't get to say, "It is okay for Biden to lie, because Trump routinely lied when he was in office". Trump could be hypocritical in criticizing Biden's lies but still correct to do so.

   1%
5. E

   Opposite, if anything3% picked this

   The salaries of the two newest employees are no higher than the salaries that other companies pay for workers with

   Since our author thinks that the two newest employees are overpaid, he would presumably think that their salaries are higher than what they would get paid elsewhere / higher than what other companies would pay for similar employees.

   3%