Method of reasoning question

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:40 am
Location: India
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:690

Method of reasoning question

by Dean Jones » Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:57 am
Dear Friends,

I was having problems in answering the following question.

Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best candidates to
the job. The legislature's move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation,
because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.
Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges teach or
give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.
Pat's response to Mel is inadequate in that it

A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing
evidence about its effect on the current members.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the
absence of negative effects
D. simply denies Mel's claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all
members of that group.


Please help.

OA after some discussions.

My choice was option C

Regards
Deano.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:25 am
Thanked: 1 times

by akhil.gupta.aspire » Sun Dec 18, 2011 9:45 am
Is this E.

Because Mel talks about effect of raising salary but with ban on teaching on most able candidates for judge job. While Pat talks about in general - since very few judges teach, therefore salary increase will have good effect.

Legendary Member
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 6:44 pm
Location: UK
Thanked: 21 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:680

by rohangupta83 » Sun Dec 18, 2011 1:55 pm
imo A

Pat is saying that "currently most of the judges do not teach or give lectures and thus a raise in salary does attract talent". She is basing this on her assumption that future candidates will also choose not to teach or give lectures.

If they choose not to then Pat is right but what weakens her reasoning is if they do teach/give lectures then they are adversely affected by the new rules, thus making "judging" less attractive.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanked: 474 times
Followed by:365 members

by VivianKerr » Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:16 pm
Mel's Conclusion: Legislation inadequate

Evidence: Salary too low to attract candidates; legislation had ban on lecture/teaching money

Assumption: Lecture/teaching money is a big draw

Pat's Conclusion: Legislation makes it better

Evidence: Very few judges lecture/teach

Q: What is Pat missing?

Prediction: Very few may lecture/teach NOW, but judges may still only be attracted to the job for the promise of lecture/teach $$.

IMO: A. Pat's saying that the legislature ("a certain change") is good b/c the current members ("very few judges") don't lecture/teach.
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"! :-)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:40 am
Location: India
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:690

by Dean Jones » Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:47 am
OA is option A

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:55 am

by mandarchougule » Fri Dec 23, 2011 9:03 am
Yes, the answer should be A