PT151 S3 Q19 ExplanationEconomist: The wages of many

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Too Strong: all8% picked this

   All of the lowest-paid corporate employees in the economist’s country are employed at corporations at which the executives earn more than 50 times what

   The author doesn't need to assume that every single lowest-paid corporate employee works at a corporation that already pays its executives more than 50 times the lowest paid. He's proposing that a max wage law would protect the employees of corporations in which some executives might try to cut wages to boost their salaries beyond the horizon of the 50x mark. He doesn't need to assume that every corporation in the country already has exorbitant CEO pay. He's just suggesting a law that would protect employees from allowing CEO's to get to that level in the future.

   8%
2. B

   Weakens, if Anything9% picked this

   Some corporate executives who cut the pay of their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country in order to increase their own salaries already

   If we negate this, it's saying "None of the CEO's who cut wages to increase their profits make less than 50 times their lowest paid employee". Rephrased positively, "All of the CEO's who cut wages to increase their profits make more than 50 times their lowest paid employee". Does that negation weaken? No, that seems to strengthen, because it would indicate that setting a 50x max on CEO pay would be restraining those CEO's who cut wages. The correct answer, when negated, should badly weaken the argument.

   9%
3. C

   Opposite Logic10% picked this

   No corporate executives in the economist’s country would raise the wages of their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country unless such a maximum

   This says, if there isn't a max wage no CEO would law linking CEO pay to → raise the wages of lowest-paid employees lowest-paid employees That doesn't resemble the author's argument. He was saying, If there were a max no CEO would lower wage law linking → the wages of the CEO pay to lowest lowest-paid employees

   10%
4. D

   Too Strong: never19% picked this

   If corporate executives could not increase their own salaries by cutting the pay and benefits of their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country,

   There might be other cases in which CEOs would change the wages of their lowest-paid employees. Maybe there is a new minimum wage law enacted that causes the CEOs to change the wages of the lowest-paid. Since this is conditional, we can ask ourselves whether our author's argument made this move: CEO's can't increase their never change pay by cutting pay/benefits → wages of those of lowest-paid employees employees Our author was just thinking that if we set a max wage law, the CEO's (at a certain point) couldn't boost their salary by cutting pay, and so they wouldn't lower their lowest-paid employees' salaries any more. But this answer is saying the wages would never change, and that also rules out raising the pay of the lowest-paid employees, which is not something the author ever talked about.

   19%
5. E

   Correct55% picked this

   If such a maximum wage law were enacted in the economist’s country, one or more corporate executives would not cut the pay and benefits

   Why this is right

   This is just stating something that the author was clearly thinking, "A max wage law would do at least some restraining of wage cutting". If we negate this answer, it's saying that "we enact the max wage law, and zero CEOs refrain from cutting the pay/benefits of their lowest-paid employees". Does that hurt the argument? Of course! That makes it sound like the max wage law would offer zero protection since it wouldn't cause a single CEO to refrain from cutting pay and benefits.

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

   55%