Elite official CR Revision Question # 4

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
Location: Noida, India
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:26 members
GMAT Score:740
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.
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 698
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:12 am
Location: Noida, India
Thanked: 32 times
Followed by:26 members
GMAT Score:740

by richachampion » Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:10 am
OA: A
R I C H A,
My GMAT Journey: 470 → 720 → 740
Target Score: 760+
[email protected]
1. Press thanks if you like my solution.
2. Contact me if you are not improving. (No Free Lunch!)

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 16207
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC
Thanked: 5254 times
Followed by:1268 members
GMAT Score:770

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:01 am
richachampion wrote: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.
For this question type (method of reasoning), it's best to spend some time constructing your own answer BEFORE examining the answer choices.


Mel's argument concerns ATTRACTING the best candidates to BECOME judges. That is, POTENTIAL CANDIDATES may dismiss the idea of becoming judges due to their inability to make extra money via lectures and teaching engagements.

Pat's comments concern people who are ALREADY JUDGES.

The problem is that, although people who are ALREADY JUDGES don't seem to be interested in making extra money via lectures and teaching engagements, it could very well be the case that POTENTIAL CANDIDATES may be interested in making extra money via lectures and teaching engagements.

Answer choice A focuses on this issue.
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.

Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Image