Logical Reasoning

PT108 · S3 · Q22 Jim: I hear that the company

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

Jim: I hear that the company is considering giving Fred and Dorothy 25 percent raises.

Jim's Conclusion

If my salary isn't raised to match theirs, then it's unfair to raise their salaries.

Jim's Evidence (since)

I've worked at the company longer than Fred and Dorothy. Their raise would make their salaries higher than mine.

Tasha's Position

Then by that logic we'd have to give 35 other employees raises, since they've been here as long as you and make what you make.

Evaluate

It's an odd task, to pick a principle that works for both arguments. It might feel easier to just focus on one person's argument, make a first pass through the answers and eliminate what we can and then compare the remaining options to the other person's argument.

Goal

Jim's is pretty easy to prephrase,

Tasha's is more like,

Both of them relate to tenure and pay disparity, but it's hard to predict the wording of an answer that would help both of them.

22.

Which one of the following principles most helps to justify both parties' statements?

  1. In order to be fair,

    Bad Match

    This is saying, "if two employees have identical duties, then they should be paid the same", but neither speaker is talking about identical duties.

    4% picked this

  2. In order to be fair,

    Bad Match

    This is saying, "if two employees have the same experience in the field, then they should be paid the same", but neither speaker is talking about experience in the field. That's talking about how long you've been working within a certain industry. Both speakers are talking instead about how long you've worked for a specific company.

    12% picked this

  3. In order to be fair,

    Too Strong

    This is saying, "if one employee has worked at the company longer than another, then they must be paid more." Jim is arguing, "if one employee has worked at the company longer than another, then they shouldn't be paid less".

    11% picked this

  4. Correct

    In order to be fair,

    Why this is right

    This says, "If one employee hasn't been working at the company for longer than a second employee has, the first employee shouldn't be making more money". This works for both parties. Jim is saying that Fred & Dorothy haven't been working at the company for longer than he has, so therefore they shouldn't get a raise that would make their salaries higher than his (they shouldn't be making more money). Tasha is saying that Jim hasn't been working at the company for longer than these 35 other employees, so therefore he shouldn't get a raise if they don't get one (he shouldn't be making more money than those 35).

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

    71% picked this

  5. In order to be fair,

    Bad Match

    This is saying, "if one employee works more time each day than another, the longer working employee should be paid more." But the evidence isn't about how much time per day people work; it's about their tenure at the company (how many years they've worked).

    2% 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