Pat's response

[anchit]

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.

Any takers....

[boazkhan]

This is a little tricky..stuck between A & B I will go with B here. OA?

[anchit]

OA: A

I went for C though... let me know how you narrowed down to A/B

[boazkhan]

It would be nice to have an Expert explain this.

- I ruled out C because of the word "argue" plus pat does not mention any absence of negative effects.

What is the source of the problem?

[anchit]

Well, one of my friends gave it to me. My answer did not match the one given and there aren't any explanations...

How do we get an expert to help us out?

[abhi84v]

Mel talks about attracting best candidates - i.e. "potential" judges. Pat responds with judges which is "current".

Hence A seems to be the answer.

[Testluv]

Step 1 of the Kaplan method tells us to always read the question stem first.

Since the question asks for how Pat's response is inadequate, we know that Pat's response is in fact inadequate even before we read the passage. After reading the passage, we should figure out how Pat's response was inadequate and ONLY THEN go to the answer choices looking for the one that best matches our prediction.

Mel argues that the salary raise hasn't been helpful in attracting more judges because the salary raise also came with a ban on judges' getting money from lectures (and teaching engagements).

Pat counters that not many judges give lectures or teach, and so the salary raise does help (or that the ban on collectin money from lectures isn't actually hurting).

Now, let's think about how Pat's response is inadequate in defeating Mel's claim. We know that very few of the current judges give lecturs. But we also know that the current judges aren't all that great. Perhaps the "best" candidates DO in fact teach and give lectures often. In that case, the ban on receiving money for lectures will deter the best candidates, and Mel's argument is solid.

Choice A matches this prediction. Looking at the language of choice A: "certain change" is the law, which although it raised salary also came with this ban on collecting lecture money; "potential members" are the best candidates, which is the group they want; and, "current members" are the current judges who aren't up to par.
______
I can see why choice C was tempting. Choice C does seem to describe Pat's argument; but it dosn't explain why Pat's response was "inadequate".

[martin.jonson007]

wud like 2 knw more commemt on why C is wrong...

[er_priyankajolly]

wud like 2 knw more commemt on why C is wrong...

Choice C is wrong because it says "attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely
by pointing to the absence of negative effects "

However the stimulus says the following about Pat "the ban will have little or no negative
effect. "

So she is not completely ignoring the negative effects.The absence word in the answer choice makes it invalid.