Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S3 · Q13 University administrator: Graduate students

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

University administrator: Graduate students incorrectly claim that teaching assistants should be considered university employees and thus entitled to the usual employee benefits.

Conclusion

TA's should not be considered university employees and thus be entitled to the usual employee benefits.

Evidence

Even though TA's teach classes (and get paid for it), the sole purpose of having them do stuff for the university is to give them money that will fund their education. If they could afford their education without the TA income or if they weren't pursuing their education, they wouldn't hold their teaching posts at all.

Evaluate

Given That TA's wouldn't have their jobs if they didn't need money to go to school where they teach, How Can We Still Argue That TA's should be considered university employees and thus be entitled to usual employee benefits?

Maybe there's a law that requires it. Maybe common decency argues in favor of it?

Does it really matter why the TA's have the job they have? If they're teaching like other teachers, shouldn't they be considered employees and receive benefits?

The administrator must be arguing,

So I guess we could even weaken by showing that the school is not on a tight budget.

Goal

Look for something that would help us argue that TA's should be considered university employees and thus be entitled to usual employee benefits.

13.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the administrator's argument?

The administrator is cognizant of
No Impact
This sounds like something we already assumed is true. The administrator is aware of how much healthcare / 401k costs, so he doesn't want to give TA's full benefits. If he were not cognizant would it make any difference? No, not really. Just an irrelevant detail. His whole case is "we're doing them a favor; we have ta draw the line at paying them. We can't also give them the usual benefits."
3% picked this
The university employs adjunct instructors
No Impact
This answer is a lot easier to interpret with outside knowledge of what adjunct instructors are — they are not full time instructors who work at a university. They're more like guest lecturers/teachers who teach like one class per semester. So they're more like contractors than employees. They don't get the usual benefits. (A lot of school are hiring more and more adjunct instructors than full professors in order to save money, just like a lot of businesses hire employees through temp agencies so that they don't have to pay those employees salary + benefits). Hence, comparing TA's to adjunct instructors doesn't weaken, since adjunct instructors are considered university employees and don't receive the usual employee benefits. I'm not sure how LSAC expected students to interpret this answer if the student didn't already know what an adjunct professor is.
16% picked this
Correct
The university has proposed that
Why this is right
This unravels the administrator's claim that the sole purpose for TA's holding their teaching positions is trying to help the TA's to be able to afford school. If the TA's could afford school, then they wouldn't have teaching positions. This answer makes that sound totally disingenuous -- if the university is thinking about replacing 10% of the faculty with TA's in the interest of the economy, then they're not giving TA's teaching positions just for their sake, they're giving TA's teaching positions in order to exploit them as cheaper labor. Although this answer certainly sounds like a decent objection to bring up in real life, because it exposes that the administrator was lying or being disingenuous by making it seem like having TA's teach was pure charity on behalf of the university, this is a really weird correct answer on LSAT. It weakens by basically giving us a way to say, "Your premises are lies!", which of course is how we're taught not to think on LSAT. It's a good reminder that there is no actual rule that says you can't weaken by invalidating a premise. It's just something that almost never happens, so we don't expect to see it. There are something like 3-5 examples of this ever (this being one of them).
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
48% picked this
Most teaching assistants earn stipends
No Impact
If anything, this would strengthen, since it sounds like the university is already being generous with its compensation for TA's and thus needn't sweeten the pot any more by throwing in the usual employee benefits. We were told that TA's receive financial compensation in order to "fund their education". Funding education goes beyond tuition. Students also need to buy books and pay for room and board, so the fact that their stipend exceeds the cost of tuition aligns with what we've already been told.
26% picked this
Teaching assistants work as much
Too Weak
This somewhat leans in the right direction. "They should be treated like regular employees and get the usual benefits. After all, they work just as much as as hard as others." But this doesn't really provide any sort of conversation-changer. The administrator will say, "I'm sure they do. The fact remains, we are already being generous with them. If they weren't in need of money, we wouldn't even give them these teaching posts."
6% 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