Minimum Wage in Kirklandia

[sg7007]

In two months, the legal minimum wage in the country of Kirlandia will increase from five Kirlandic dollars(KD5.00) Per hour to KD5.50 per hour. Opponents of this increase have argued that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up. In fact its impact on wages will probably be negligible, since only a very small proportion of all Kirfandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour.

Q. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Most people in kirlandia who are currently earning the minimum wage have
been employed at their current jobs for less than a year.
B. Some firms in Kirlandia have paid workers considerably less than KD5.00
per hour, in violation of kirlandic employment regulations.
C. Many businesses hire trainees at or near the minimum wage but must
reward trained workers by keeping their paylevels above the pay level
of trainees.
D. The greatest growth in Kirlandia’s economy in recent years has been in
those sectors where workers earn wages that tend to be much higher
than the minimum wage.
E The current minimum wage is insufficient for a worker holding only one job to earn enough to support a family ,even when working full time at that job.

This is a re-constructed problem. They say the correct answer is (B), but I think it's (C). I'm not 100% sure about that, though. Can someone tell me what the correct answer is and give me some detailed explanation?

Thanks in advance.

[dendude]

B is perfectly fine.

The argument is about the impact on wages (in view of the increase) being very less and hence would not actually cause an increase in inflation.
B is the only option that actually says the impact on wages is considerable. Since some workers were receiving wages considerably below $5 (say, maybe $1) - the impact on the wages of these workers is pretty high. And probably will cause inflation.

C is clearly out of scope. Trained and Untrained workers do not fit in the argument.

[krisraam]

IMO B.

B is the only choice that fits the bill here.

The usage "Some " will put some doubt . However will be compensated by the usage "Considerably".

Thanks
Raama

[4seasoncentre]

I'm with you SG7007.

To me, those that are already breaking the law will continue to do so and that strengthens the argument.

[Vemuri]

This is a weaken question. Lets find out the conclusion & premise. The assumption we narrow down on should widen the gap between the conclusion & premise.

Premise: In two months, the legal minimum wage in Kirlandia will increase from KD5.00 Per hour to KD5.50 per hour. Opponents of this increase argue that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up.

Conclusion: The impact of rise in minimum wage will be negligible influence on inflation, since only a very small proportion of all Kirfandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour.

We should look for an answer choice that attacks the conclusion.

A - States that most people who are working for less than 1 year are already earning the minimum wage (KD5.0) - Does nothing to the conclusion.
B - Some firms in Kirlandia have paid workers considerably less than KD5.00 per hour. So, increasing their wage to the KD5.5 in 2 months will be like giving them more money. So, there is a considerable impact in this scenario.
C - Trainees get minimum wage while trained should get higher. This does not attack the conclusion in a serious way.
D - Does not do anything to the conclusion, because people are already getting more than the minimum wage & so, increasing the minimum wage has no impact.
E. Out of scope.

Hope this helps.

[sg7007]

The answer choice, (B) states that some firms have been paying significantly less than KD5.00, which is clearly in violation of the current Kirklandic minimum wage law. So, how could it be guaranteed that those companies won't violate the minimum wage law by still paying less than KD5.50, which would be the new minimum wage? This is why I thought (B) didn't weaken the author's argument that the new law's impact would be negligible on wages.

The second issue is a poor wording of the passage itself.

"Opponents of this increase have argued that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up. In fact its impact on wages will probably be negligible."

It says opponents have argued something about the inflation rate, then the author suddenly makes an opposing conclusion regarding wages. Of course those two are closely related, but still, I think this passage is poorly reconstructed. What do you guys think about this?

[delhiboy1979]

I think C weakens the conclusion more than B. For instance, the use of many and some. Also as mentioned in one of the comments above, there is no guarantee that 'some' firms will pay more and not violate the law.

Can we have the source of the question please.

[sg7007]

I think C weakens the conclusion more than B. For instance, the use of many and some. Also as mentioned in one of the comments above, there is no guarantee that 'some' firms will pay more and not violate the law.

Can we have the source of the question please.

The Powerscore LSAT LR Bible says, "many" and "some" have similar meanings in terms of quantity. I think (C) is closer to the correct answer, but I don't think it's because of the difference of the meaning b/w the terms "many" and "some"

This is a question from a collection of reconstructed problem sets, called GWD. I'm not sure if this is a standard name for it.

[samanthaJ79]

I'm pretty confident that B is correct answer.