Critical Reasoning

Many non-profit companies pay their employees a wage significantly lower than the wage earned by employees doing comparable work in the for profit sector. A director of a non-profit company argued that the pay scale was justified because working at a non-profit company provides employees wirh valuable work experience.

Which of the following, if true, seriously weakens the explanation given by the director.

A. Directors of non-profit companies earned salaries comparable to those of directors in the for profit sector
B. Some employees at non-profit companies believe they are doing a service to society.
C. Most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years.
D. After working in the non-profit sector for many years, some employees earn wages higher than those earned by some employees in the for profit sector.
E. Non-profit companies often provide services that for profit companies will not.


I just don't see the connection between the argument and the alleged right answer :/

There is indeed a connection.
A is the best and correct answer choice. A tells us that if Directors(who are also emplyees) of non-profit companies can have salaries same as those of profit companies, then the argument is easily weakened.

jaygirl001 wrote:Many non-profit companies pay their employees a wage significantly lower than the wage earned by employees doing comparable work in the for profit sector. A director of a non-profit company argued that the pay scale was justified because working at a non-profit company provides employees wirh valuable work experience.

Which of the following, if true, seriously weakens the explanation given by the director.

A. Directors of non-profit companies earned salaries comparable to those of directors in the for profit sector
B. Some employees at non-profit companies believe they are doing a service to society.
C. Most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years.
D. After working in the non-profit sector for many years, some employees earn wages higher than those earned by some employees in the for profit sector.
E. Non-profit companies often provide services that for profit companies will not.


I just don't see the connection between the argument and the alleged right answer :/

hmmmm...............

my pick would be C

explanation by the director:pay scale was justified because working at a non-profit company provides employees with valuable work experience.

what if they have been working there for an extended period of time.......... and C states that most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years.

jaygirl001 wrote:Many non-profit companies pay their employees a wage significantly lower than the wage earned by employees doing comparable work in the for profit sector. A director of a non-profit company argued that the pay scale was justified because working at a non-profit company provides employees wirh valuable work experience.

Which of the following, if true, seriously weakens the explanation given by the director.

A. Directors of non-profit companies earned salaries comparable to those of directors in the for profit sector
B. Some employees at non-profit companies believe they are doing a service to society.
C. Most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years.
D. After working in the non-profit sector for many years, some employees earn wages higher than those earned by some employees in the for profit sector.
E. Non-profit companies often provide services that for profit companies will not.


I just don't see the connection between the argument and the alleged right answer :/

I vote for option C.

The stimulus notes that -- the pay scale was justified because working at a non-profit company provides employees wirh valuable work experience. and option C attacks it.

What if they have been working at non-profit for more than five years just BECAUSE it is giving them valuable experience and thus they have continued to work for so long. Thus argument can not be weakened by C.

gmatrix wrote:hmmmm...............

my pick would be C

explanation by the director:pay scale was justified because working at a non-profit company provides employees with valuable work experience.

what if they have been working there for an extended period of time.......... and C states that most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years.

what if they have been working there for an extended period of time.......... and C states that most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years

having worked there >5yrs ..are you suggested they already got valuable work exp? or that they've little lethargic to move out? It tells me that there is still something this option is forcing us to assume before we can agree that it weakens..It may well be the case with other options as well.

However E seem to have some ray of hope in weakening...its the service that attracts employees and settle for less than market rather than for the valuable work experience..which indirectly suggests these employees are less than competition and so they require valuable work experience...

imo E

@ov25,
the basic question is whether wages of non-profit employees are justified? hope this triggers you to pick A as answer.

ov25 wrote:

what if they have been working there for an extended period of time.......... and C states that most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years

having worked there >5yrs ..are you suggested they already got valuable work exp? or that they've little lethargic to move out? It tells me that there is still something this option is forcing us to assume before we can agree that it weakens..It may well be the case with other options as well.

However E seem to have some ray of hope in weakening...its the service that attracts employees and settle for less than market rather than for the valuable work experience..which indirectly suggests these employees are less than competition and so they require valuable work experience...

imo E

hmmm........
imo... the basic question is Which of the following, if true, seriously weakens the explanation given by the director.

what is the explanation given by the director ?

A would be correct if it is asked what weakens the argument above?

or maybe i am reading too much into it

My pick would be A

Need official answer please .

Seems to be A

"The correct answer is C because it weakens the argument by showing that most employees already have experience, so the pay scale is not justified."

So what if they have been working there for five years? I still don't see a connection.

I thought E was a better coice because if the work experience is not applicable to the for profit secor then how can it justify a lower pay..right?

it was a bad question

Only option A seems to weaken the argument.

OA plzz...

jaygirl001 wrote:Many non-profit companies pay their employees a wage significantly lower than the wage earned by employees doing comparable work in the for profit sector. A director of a non-profit company argued that the pay scale was justified because working at a non-profit company provides employees wirh valuable work experience.

Which of the following, if true, seriously weakens the explanation given by the director.

A. Directors of non-profit companies earned salaries comparable to those of directors in the for profit sector
B. Some employees at non-profit companies believe they are doing a service to society.
C. Most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years.
D. After working in the non-profit sector for many years, some employees earn wages higher than those earned by some employees in the for profit sector.
E. Non-profit companies often provide services that for profit companies will not.


I just don't see the connection between the argument and the alleged right answer :/

i think the answer is C because
the argument states that workers in non profit companies got low salary because the direct think the chances to work for his company is a chance to get more and more experience and experice here is sounded like "salary" or a reward, value reward
and C says that they have worked for the company 5 years.... 5 years is too long just for experience.... if they had just worked for only some months or 1 years, it would be ok, however its 5 years, you dont need to study to cook a chicken soup in 5 years, i think so

jaygirl001 wrote:"The correct answer is C because it weakens the argument by showing that most employees already have experience, so the pay scale is not justified."

So what if they have been working there for five years? I still don't see a connection.

I thought E was a better coice because if the work experience is not applicable to the for profit secor then how can it justify a lower pay..right?

it was a bad question

Seems that we need to figure out what the conclusion is first. Then it should be easier to choose the best option that weakens it.

So, is the conclusion the first sentence or the second sentence?
I chose the 2nd sentence as the premise. why? it seems to be giving us supporting evidence
And the 1st sentence as the conclusion. why? it states a claim

If the above analysis is accurate then it seems to me that option A weakens the argument.
Key phrase: Employees doing the same work. Option A: Directors do the same work in both for-profit and non-profit.

D Also sounds good, but is wrong, because it does not compare exact comparable jobs (e.g. same job title)

My pick is A. I think the ppl who are picking C are reading it incorrectly.

Gaining valuable experience != Number of years worked!

And you are not attacking the main point of why the director thinks it's ok for regular employees to be underpaid. A points out the hypocrisy in his statement. HTH.