PT158 S2 Q4 ExplanationCerrato: Economists argue both that

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Contradicted3% picked this

   full-time workers are likely to lose jobs to

   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%
2. B

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   the companies earning the greatest profits tend to be those that pay their workers

   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%
3. C

   Correct82% picked this

   dissatisfied part-time workers are unlikely to threaten the jobs of

   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.

   82%
4. D

   Unsupported Causality4% picked this

   the higher turnover rate of part-time workers is only partly caused by their

   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%
5. E

   Out of Scope10% picked this

   companies generally hire part-time workers only when they are unable to

   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.

   10%