Logical Reasoning

PT158 · S2 · Q4 Cerrato: Economists argue both that

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

Cerrato: Economists argue both that the higher turnover rate of part-time workers shows them to be much more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs than full-time workers are and that lower-paid, part-time workers threaten to take jobs from full-time employees.

Given

Economists argue that the higher turnover rate of part-time workers shows them to be much more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs than full-time workers are.

Economists also argue that lower-paid, part-time workers threaten to take jobs from full-time employees.

But because job efficiency is positively correlated with job satisfaction, companies are unlikely to replace satisfied employees with dissatisfied ones.

Evaluate / Goal

Since we're told that part-time workers are more likely to be dissatisfied with their jobs than full-time workers, and companies are unlikely to replace satisfied employees with dissatisfied ones, we might conclude that companies are unlikely to replace full-time employees with part-time employees.

This suggests that the economists' second claim about part-time workers taking jobs from full-time workers is unlikely to be true.

But wait! This is assuming that the economists first claim about part-time workers being dissatisfied is true. We don't actually know that. So, a possible conclusion is that one of the two claims argued by economists is true and the other isn't.

4.

Which one of the following most logically completes Cerrato's argument?

  1. full-time workers are likely to

    Contradicted

    This answer says full-time workers are likely to lose jobs to part-time workers — the exact opposite of what Cerrato's argument establishes. Cerrato's entire point is that dissatisfied part-timers are less efficient than satisfied full-timers, so companies will not make that replacement. Concluding that full-timers will lose jobs to part-timers directly contradicts the reasoning chain about efficiency and satisfaction. Cerrato is arguing against the economists' threat claim, not endorsing it.

    3% picked this

  2. the companies earning the greatest

    Out of Scope

    This answer introduces a claim about the relationship between employee pay and company profits — a topic the argument never touches. Cerrato's argument is about the relationship between job satisfaction, efficiency, and job replacement. Whether the highest-paying companies earn the most profits is a separate economic question that does not follow from the premises about part-time workers' dissatisfaction and the satisfaction-efficiency correlation. The argument has no basis for drawing any conclusion about profit maximization or compensation strategies.

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    dissatisfied part-time workers are unlikely

    Why this is right

    This answer logically completes Cerrato's argument. The reasoning chain is: (1) economists claim part-timers are dissatisfied and threaten full-time jobs; (2) efficiency correlates with satisfaction; (3) companies will not replace satisfied, efficient employees with dissatisfied, inefficient ones. The natural conclusion is that dissatisfied part-time workers do not actually threaten full-time jobs. This answer captures exactly that: the very dissatisfaction that economists attribute to part-timers makes them unlikely replacements for the satisfied full-timers they supposedly threaten. The economists' own premise about dissatisfaction undermines their conclusion about job displacement.

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

    83% picked this

  4. the higher turnover rate of

    Unsupported Causality

    This answer introduces a causal claim about what drives turnover — that dissatisfaction is only partly responsible. But Cerrato's argument does not investigate the causes of turnover. Cerrato accepts the economists' claim that part-timers are dissatisfied and uses it against their job-threat claim. The question of whether dissatisfaction fully or partially explains turnover is irrelevant to Cerrato's reasoning about whether dissatisfied part-timers will replace satisfied full-timers. Nothing in the premises supports a conclusion about the causal structure of turnover rates.

    4% picked this

  5. companies generally hire part-time workers

    Out of Scope

    This answer claims companies only hire part-timers when they cannot find full-timers. Nothing in the argument addresses companies' hiring preferences or the circumstances under which they turn to part-time workers. Cerrato's reasoning is about the satisfaction-efficiency connection and its implications for job replacement. The claim about when companies resort to part-time hiring introduces an entirely new premise about labor market dynamics that has no connection to the argument's conclusion about dissatisfied part-timers not threatening full-time positions.

    9% 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