Logical Reasoning

PT128 · S2 · Q10 Columnist: Raising the minimum wage

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

Columnist: Raising the minimum wage to the level recently proposed will actually hurt, rather than help, workers with low incomes.

Conclusion

Raising the minimum wage to the level recently proposed will actually hurt, rather than help, workers with low incomes.

Evidence

As the minimum wage increases, businesses must compensate for higher wage costs by increasing prices for the goods and services that low-income workers must buy but can already barely afford.

Evaluate

There are no new ideas in this conclusion that might help us identify a Missing Link. Instead, consider the Anti-conclusion: Given that prices of goods will go up and it's hard enough to buy them already, how could we still argue that a minimum wage increase would help? What if their wages go up more than the cost of goods? In that case, the wage hike could still be a net positive for workers.

Goal

Look for an answer that neutralizes this objection by saying that the wages won't increase more than the cost of goods.

10.

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

  1. Workers who earn more than

    Irrelevant Relationship

    We don't need anything to be true of workers who earn more than minium wage to reach our conclusion about minimum wage workers.

    2% picked this

  2. Any increase to the minimum

    Negation

    For one thing, we don't need anything to be true of smaller wage hikes than the one proposed. You could say that those hypothetical smaller hikes are out of scope. But digging deeper, this is actually a classic LSAT Negation trap. If the premise tells you X --> Y, you don't need to assume ~X --> ~Y.

    3% picked this

  3. Correct

    The proposed minimum-wage increase would

    Why this is right

    This matches our prediction. If we didn't predict this, we should still be drawn to the lovable language of ruling out: not wholly compensate. Not only is this common in Necessary Assumption correct answers, it's also very easy to subject to the Negation Test. What would happen to this argument if the wage increases did wholly compensate workers for the price hikes? That would destory the argument, preventing us from concluding that the wage increases would hurt rather than help. If the answer, negated, ruins the argument, it's correct.

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

    92% picked this

  4. If raising the minimum wage

    Irrelevant Relationship

    We're not concerned with what does or doesn't justify a wage raise. We're concerned with analyzing the impact of a wage raise.

    1% picked this

  5. Changes in the minimum wage

    Inference Bait

    We might walk away from this argument thinking "well if that's true, I guess raising minimum wage isn't that great for the economy afterall." But something you might infer from the text is not the same as something the text assumes. We don't need this to be true in order for the argument to work. The introduction of the idea of "belief" is a big red flag. Answers about intent, knowledge or belief are almost never correct unless the stimulus itself explicilty deals with the concept, too.

    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