Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S4 · Q2 Programmer: We computer programmers

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

Programmer: We computer programmers at Mytheco are demanding raises to make our average salary comparable with that of the technical writers here who receive, on average, 20 percent more in salary and benefits than we do.

Programmer's argument

The 20% pay difference (writers earn more) is unfair and intolerable.

Executive's argument

Salary is tied to seniority, and many writers have more seniority than many programmers, so the difference is acceptable.

Evaluate

The executive's defense relies on writers being more senior on average than programmers. But "many writers have more seniority than many programmers" is weaker than it sounds — it's consistent with writers and programmers having similar average seniority, or even programmers being more senior on average. To know whether the seniority-based pay system actually justifies a 20% gap, we need to know how the average seniority of the two groups compares.

Goal

Find the answer that targets this comparison: the average seniority of programmers versus the average seniority of technical writers.

Evaluating the adequacy of the Mytheco executive's response requires a clarification of which one of the following?

whether any of the technical
Out of Scope
Whether some writers used to be programmers doesn't affect whether the seniority-based pay system actually justifies the 20% gap. Their job-history details would not change the average seniority comparison or the fairness analysis. Doesn't bear on the executive's defense.
2% picked this
Correct
how the average seniority of
Why this is right
This nails the gap. The executive defended the 20% gap by saying pay tracks seniority and "many writers" have more seniority than "many programmers." But that vague comparison is consistent with the two groups having similar average seniority — in which case the seniority story can't justify the gap. Knowing how the average seniority of programmers compares to the average seniority of writers tells us whether the seniority-based system actually predicts the 20% gap. If averages are roughly equal, the executive's defense fails.
Skill tested: Evaluate · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
94% picked this
whether the sorts of benefits
Out of Scope
The executive's defense already explicitly says salary AND benefits are tied to seniority. We don't need to clarify whether benefits are tied to salary as a separate matter. This doesn't bear on the seniority-comparison gap that actually drives the dispute.
4% picked this
whether the Mytheco executive was
Out of Scope
The executive's personal job history is irrelevant to whether the seniority-based pay system justifies the 20% gap. The argument is about pay structure, not about the executive's biases or background.
0% picked this
how the Mytheco executive’s salary
Out of Scope
The executive's salary isn't part of the comparison. The dispute is about programmers vs. writers; what an executive earns is a separate matter and doesn't affect whether seniority justifies the writer-programmer gap.
0% 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