to the top

#9- Museum visitor: The national government has mandated a 5

lunalondon
LSAT Apprentice
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 2:53 pm
Points: 20

Hello Powerscore,

I've actually got another question on this one. Why can't D be correct? If the annual number of visitors has NOT increased steadily, then the minimum wage would not really seem to "adversely affect the museum-going public." Or perhaps it could adversely affect the loyal museum goers? Thanks!
Jonathan Evans
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:12 pm
Points: 570
Location: DFW, Texas

LunaLondon, I am sorry! Nikki was right and I was wrong. I have corrected the explanation accordingly and apologize for my error. Negate the quantity statement here for an accurate negation. Thank you for pointing this out!
Jonathan Evans
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 681
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:12 pm
Points: 570
Location: DFW, Texas

Hi, LunaLondon,

To answer your second question, answer choice (D) is not a necessary belief of the author and, if this trend continues, would actually weaken the author's conclusion. Does the author have to believe that the number of annual visitors has increased steadily? Not necessarily. Could it be that the number of annual visitors has NOT increased steadily and that "the museum will be forced either to raise admission fees or to decrease services"?

The conclusion is still a possibility, so this particular answer fails the Assumption Negation TestTM.
lunalondon
LSAT Apprentice
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 2:53 pm
Points: 20

Thanks!
Blueballoon5%
LSAT Master
 
Posts: 160
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 1:22 am
Points: 127

Hello! When tackling answer choice A, I made an error in the Negation Technique. However, I am not sure where I went wrong.

My negation of answer choice A: "Some of the museum's employees are paid significantly more than the minimum wage." (I simply removed the "not").

Thus, with this negation, I eliminated answer choice A because I didn't think it necessarily hurt the argument that some of the employees happened to be paid over the minimum wage. This seems like a "so-what" kind of answer. Whether some employees were previously paid over the minimum wage, it doesn't change the fact that the 5% increase can increase the museum's operating expenses.
Brook Miscoski
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:38 am
Points: 366

Blueballoon,

Recall my earlier advice (albeit this same evening) that you should negate the choice in a way that disrupts the logical relationship presented in the choice. Let's think about the choice and your negation.

Choice: Some employees are not paid significantly more than minimum wage.
Your negation: Some employees are paid significantly more than minimum wage.

That is not a negation, since both of the statements can be true at the same time. Some are, while some are not. To disrupt the logical relationship presented in the choice, you need a negation that contradicts the answer choice. Let's look at the other option:

Choice: Some employees are not paid significantly more than minimum wage.
Negation: All of the employees are paid significantly more than the minimum wage.

These choices cannot be true simultaneously, so we have a negation. Looking to the effect on the stimulus, if all of the employees already make well over the minimum wage, the law will not have any immediate effect on the museum.