LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8919
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#22954
Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (D)

Premise: Scientists in the private sector can earn 50 percent more than in a government job requiring similar skills. Additional premise: Government-employed scientists would have no problem finding private-sector jobs. Conclusion: The most-skilled government scientists will leave for the private sector, unless their sense of public duty trumps their self-interest.

This argument implicitly assumes that monetary compensation is the only factor entering self-interest. What if the government jobs are safer? What if the government jobs have better job security? What if the government jobs have more reasonable hours? Any of these factors could undermine the argument. Thus, to make the argument work, it is necessary that we dismiss all of these possibilities.

Notice the question stem: We are looking for a necessary, though perhaps not sufficient, assumption which will fill in at least one gap in this argument.

Answer choice (A): Applying the Assumption Negation test: What if government scientists are equally or more likely to receive recognition and kudos for their work? This would undermine the argument, as it suggests an additional reason why public-sector work might be more attractive. This answer choice looks like an attractive candidate. However, note that we do not completely destroy the argument by applying the Assumption Negation test. Private-sector jobs could still be better in terms of self-interest, even if they do not win on the recognition factor.

Answer choice (B): What if some government research scientists earn more than the highest-paid private-sector scientists? At first glance, this seems to undermine the argument: perhaps the government is giving a salary premium for scientists at the very top of the skills ladder, and thus such scientists will not leave. However, this story would not entirely destroy the stimulus. Perhaps there is only one government scientist who receives such a premium, and perhaps he is receiving the premium for entirely unrelated reasons (maybe he's dating the boss). The author's fundamental argument could still hold in this case. Thus, the statement in this answer choice is not absolutely necessary.

Answer choice (C): The number of scientists currently employed in government jobs vs. private sector jobs is irrelevant to the issue of the incentives for scientists to switch jobs.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Apply the Assumption Negation test: What if government scientists do get unusually good working conditions or fringe benefits that more than compensate for low salaries? This would destroy the argument; in this case, clearly self-interest would not push the scientists toward private-sector jobs. Thus, the statement in this answer choice must be necessary for the argument.

Answer choice (E): Applying the Assumption Negation test: What if private-sector scientists work shorter hours? This would actually support the argument, not destroy it.
 ericj_williams
  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: Jan 19, 2020
|
#84372
How are A and D not the same thing?

Both refer to rewards outside monetary compensation? Both exclude monetary compensation from being the only factor.
User avatar
 KelseyWoods
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1079
  • Joined: Jun 26, 2013
|
#84434
Hi ericj!

Answer choices (A) and (D) are both similar in that they present non-monetary factors. But answer choice (A) is too specific to be a necessary assumption of this argument.

Does it have to be true that government research scientists are less likely to receive acknowledgment for their research contributions than are research scientists in the private sector? Not really. If they were just as likely to receive acknowledgment that would still give them another reason to switch to a higher paying job--all things being equal why not make more money?

And as the explanation above states, the Assumption Negation Technique shows us that the negation of answer choice (A) weakens the argument, but doesn't destroy it in the same way that we need the negation of an actual assumption to do.

Plus, answer choice (D) directly tells us that these conditions/benefits would compensate for lower salaries. Answer choice (A) doesn't say that acknowledgment would necessarily compensate for a lower salary. So answer choice (D) is much stronger.

Even if two answer choices seem similar, we know there is only one correct answer and we always have to choose the best answer. So dig into the small differences between the answer choices and determine which one is truly the best answer.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey
User avatar
 relona
  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: Jul 23, 2021
|
#90005
Administrator wrote: Mon Apr 11, 2016 2:43 pm Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (D)

Premise: Scientists in the private sector can earn 50 percent more than in a government job requiring similar skills. Additional premise: Government-employed scientists would have no problem finding private-sector jobs. Conclusion: The most-skilled government scientists will leave for the private sector, unless their sense of public duty trumps their self-interest.

This argument implicitly assumes that monetary compensation is the only factor entering self-interest. What if the government jobs are safer? What if the government jobs have better job security? What if the government jobs have more reasonable hours? Any of these factors could undermine the argument. Thus, to make the argument work, it is necessary that we dismiss all of these possibilities.

Notice the question stem: We are looking for a necessary, though perhaps not sufficient, assumption which will fill in at least one gap in this argument.

Answer choice (A): Applying the Assumption Negation test: What if government scientists are equally or more likely to receive recognition and kudos for their work? This would undermine the argument, as it suggests an additional reason why public-sector work might be more attractive. This answer choice looks like an attractive candidate. However, note that we do not completely destroy the argument by applying the Assumption Negation test. Private-sector jobs could still be better in terms of self-interest, even if they do not win on the recognition factor.

Answer choice (B): What if some government research scientists earn more than the highest-paid private-sector scientists? At first glance, this seems to undermine the argument: perhaps the government is giving a salary premium for scientists at the very top of the skills ladder, and thus such scientists will not leave. However, this story would not entirely destroy the stimulus. Perhaps there is only one government scientist who receives such a premium, and perhaps he is receiving the premium for entirely unrelated reasons (maybe he's dating the boss). The author's fundamental argument could still hold in this case. Thus, the statement in this answer choice is not absolutely necessary.

Answer choice (C): The number of scientists currently employed in government jobs vs. private sector jobs is irrelevant to the issue of the incentives for scientists to switch jobs.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Apply the Assumption Negation test: What if government scientists do get unusually good working conditions or fringe benefits that more than compensate for low salaries? This would destroy the argument; in this case, clearly self-interest would not push the scientists toward private-sector jobs. Thus, the statement in this answer choice must be necessary for the argument.

Answer choice (E): Applying the Assumption Negation test: What if private-sector scientists work shorter hours? This would actually support the argument, not destroy it.

Why is this a Supporter assumption? I thought it was a Defender because the book says that Defender choices counter "what-if" scenarios and Supporter choices close gaps and I didn't see any gaps.
 Rachael Wilkenfeld
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1358
  • Joined: Dec 15, 2011
|
#90012
Hi Relona,

I'm not sure where you see this is a supporter assumption question. For what it's worth, it ultimately doesn't matter if you call something a supporter or defender assumption---either way, you are looking for something necessary for the argument. In this case, you could see the assumption as something that defends against alternatives (the possibility of fringe benefits). In fact, I'd say that's a fairly good way to see this one.

Hope that helps!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.