official salary for judges

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:42 pm
Location: Paris, France
Thanked: 71 times
Followed by:17 members
GMAT Score:710

official salary for judges

by gmat740 » Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:05 pm
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.

[spoiler]IMO-C
OA-A[/spoiler]
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:27 pm
i chose C too.
the OA does seem unsettling. i thought the passage says the salary has been historically low, it doesnt address any impact on potential members.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am
Thanked: 17 times

Re: official salary for judges

by madhur_ahuja » Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:54 pm
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.


The highlighted portion suggests that Pat infact agrees that it will have *some* negative effects, although little. But he makes the conclusion that overall result would be positive. This rejects C, D
. B is clearly wrong.


Also, the tense is important - *will*, just because current members situation has not improved due to ban, it incorrectly assumes that future members will also not be benifitted.


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.

[spoiler]IMO-C
OA-A[/spoiler][/quote]

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:01 am

by urs_maverick » Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:40 am
Hi,

I chose A because :-

Mel says Its difficult to attract future candidates who might be interested in judge post because of jobs low salary and there is ban on current judges to earn money from teaching

Pat says among current judges only few can teach but what about any candidate in future who might like the judge job and may also like teaching.
pat fails to idetify the fact that future candidates might be interested in teaching

Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Mon May 17, 2010 7:14 am
Any thoughts on this one?....I believe it should be A but confused in C here....please explain
Best-
Amit

Legendary Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:33 am
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:2 members

by kstv » Mon May 17, 2010 7:43 am
Mel : The profession has not been able to attract the best talents because of poor pay. Pay has increased but it comes with a rider - no teaching assignments.
Pat : Few judges get such assignments. The ban is useless.

There was no ban before. The few who got the assingments must be relatively good. It is possible that the talented ones will get more offers for lectureship. The total package could have then seemed lucrative to attract the best.

Pat is ignoring the fact that the current crop of jugdes are not good enough to attract teaching jobs. Talented ones would do better but the ban has put a stop to that.

Take the case of sportsmen.
Soccer does not get the best talent. Better club fees will attract players from mainland Europe but they cannot endorse products. The current players hardly gets any endorsement. Do you think someone like David Beckham will just get attracted by club fee, he will generate huge amts through endorsements. Companies will not interested in current player will find Backham is a different ballgame.

Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Mon May 17, 2010 7:49 am
kstv wrote:Mel : The profession has not been able to attract the best talents because of poor pay. Pay has increased but it comes with a rider - no teaching assignments.
Pat : Few judges get such assignments. The ban is useless.

There was no ban before. The few who got the assingments must be relatively good. It is possible that the talented ones will get more offers for lectureship. The total package could have then seemed lucrative to attract the best.

Pat is ignoring the fact that the current crop of jugdes are not good enough to attract teaching jobs. Talented ones would do better but the ban has put a stop to that.

Take the case of sportsmen.
Soccer does not get the best talent. Better club fees will attract players from mainland Europe but they cannot endorse products. The current players hardly gets any endorsement. Do you think someone like David Beckham will just get attracted by club fee, he will generate huge amts through endorsements. Companies will not interested in current player will find Backham is a different ballgame.
can you please elaborate a bit more on this one?

and explain all the options in details...I am still not clear
Best-
Amit

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:17 am
Location: madrid
Thanked: 171 times
Followed by:64 members
GMAT Score:790

by kevincanspain » Mon May 17, 2010 8:27 am
gmat740 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.

[spoiler]IMO-C
OA-A[/spoiler]
The flaw in Pat's reasoning is that he notes that current judges teach and gives lectures in order to draw a conclusion about prospective judges. Always be suspicious when the scope of the evidence differs from that of the conclusion. Pat mentions that the salary rise, so C is out. This arugment has nothing to do with cause and effect, so B is out. He provides evidence to support his claim, so D is out
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid

Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:14 am
kevincanspain wrote:
gmat740 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.

[spoiler]IMO-C
OA-A[/spoiler]
The flaw in Pat's reasoning is that he notes that current judges teach and gives lectures in order to draw a conclusion about prospective judges. Always be suspicious when the scope of the evidence differs from that of the conclusion. Pat mentions that the salary rise, so C is out. This arugment has nothing to do with cause and effect, so B is out. He provides evidence to support his claim, so D is out
Hi Kevin,

what about E here?
Best-
Amit

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:24 am
Hi Kevin,

Can you please tell why option C is wrong?

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 am
Thanked: 135 times
Followed by:7 members

by selango » Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:34 am
here the negative effect is ban on teaching and lectures.

Option C states that the change will have positive effect by pointing to absence of negative effects.It means there should not be any negative effects.

Pat says that the effect will have little or no negative effect

Since there may be little negative effect,we cannot consider C.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:39 am
Location: Bengaluru, India
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:640

by sachindia » Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:07 am
whats wrong with E :O
Regards,
Sach

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 5:03 am
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:700

by shenoydevika » Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:12 am
E is incorrect because neither Mel nor Pat makes a distinction between the most able members of the group and the rest of the group.!

The Legislature has made a move to raise a salary of all the judges not just the most able judges. Also, in respect of the lectures and teaching engagements thing, we are not told that only the best judges will get teaching engagements.

Option E is seriously out of scope