Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S1 · Q5 Barnes: The two newest employees

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

Barnes: The two newest employees at this company have salaries that are too high for the simple tasks normally assigned to new employees and duties that are too complex for inexperienced workers.

Conclusion (hence)

The salaries and the complexity of the duties of these two newest employees should be reduced.

Evidence

The two newest employees have salaries that are too high for the simple tasks normally assigned to new employees and duties that are too complex for inexperienced workers.

Evaluate

The author is concerned about these new employees, for two reasons that seem to almost contradict each other.

1. they're paid too much! 2. their duties are too complex!

Yeah, buddy, maybe they're paid a bunch because their duties are complex.

But the author's problem isn't that someone would have complex duties and high pay; it's that a new employee would have complex duties and high pay.

Given that ... New employees "normally" have lower salaries and simpler duties.

How could we argue that ... The salaries / complexity of the new employees need not be reduced?

I guess we'd have to argue that these new employees are special. Sure, normally, we wouldn't give pay this high or duties this complex to new employees, but these new employees are rock stars.

Goal

Look for a Linking answer like, .

Or look for a Defender answer like, .

5.

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

  1. The duties of the two

    Too Strong: maximum complexity

    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% picked this

  2. It is because of the

    Unsupported Causal Relationship

    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."

    15% picked this

  3. Correct

    The two newest employees are

    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.

    75% picked this

  4. Barnes was not hired at

    Out of Scope: Barnes

    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% picked this

  5. The salaries of the two

    Opposite, if anything

    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% 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