- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:07 am
#35645
Complete Question Explanation
Evaluate the Argument. The correct answer choice is (B)
The executive’s response to the programmer is obviously incomplete. According to the
executive, “many of the technical writers have worked for Mytheco longer than have many of the
programmers.” Although we should accept this as technically correct, it does very little to address
the programmer’s concern. “Many” is a logically vague word, meaning only “some number greater
than one.” If the two most senior technical writers have worked one month longer than the two most
junior programmers, than almost every programmer would have seniority compared to almost every
technical writer. While such a scenario is obviously extreme, it is nonetheless consistent with the
executive’s claim and would provide support for the programmer’s complaint. To understand if the
executive’s claim does justify the 20 percent pay difference, we need to know more than just the
relative seniority of a portion of each employee group.
Answer choice (A): It is impossible to answer this question in a manner that affects the validity of
the executive’s response. Whether all technical writers were once programmers or none of them
were, we still cannot determine is the discrepancy in compensation is acceptable because we still
don’t know enough about either group’s seniority.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Since the technical writers receive, on
average, 20 percent more in salary and benefits than the programmers and salary and benefits are
directly tied to seniority, the compensation discrepancy can only be justified by an average difference
in seniority. If the average seniority of technical writers exceeds that of programmers, the pay
difference may be acceptable. If not, the executive’s attempt to address the programmer’s concern is
invalid and seniority cannot explain the discrepancy in overall compensation.
Answer choice (C): Whether or not benefits and salary are linked to each other, we already know
that both are linked to position (i.e., whether an employee is a technical writer or a programmer) and
seniority. Since both the programmer and the executive refer to salary and benefits together, how the
two types of compensation relate to each other is irrelevant.
Answer choice (D): The executive’s background is irrelevant here. Even if she were once a technical
writer and was now trying to justify the pay scale of her former colleagues, the merit of her response
is entirely dependent on which group has seniority and should therefore be paid more.
Answer choice (E): Comparing the executive salary to the programmers’ salary is pointless.
Regardless of whom is paid more, the executive’s response requires further clarification.
Evaluate the Argument. The correct answer choice is (B)
The executive’s response to the programmer is obviously incomplete. According to the
executive, “many of the technical writers have worked for Mytheco longer than have many of the
programmers.” Although we should accept this as technically correct, it does very little to address
the programmer’s concern. “Many” is a logically vague word, meaning only “some number greater
than one.” If the two most senior technical writers have worked one month longer than the two most
junior programmers, than almost every programmer would have seniority compared to almost every
technical writer. While such a scenario is obviously extreme, it is nonetheless consistent with the
executive’s claim and would provide support for the programmer’s complaint. To understand if the
executive’s claim does justify the 20 percent pay difference, we need to know more than just the
relative seniority of a portion of each employee group.
Answer choice (A): It is impossible to answer this question in a manner that affects the validity of
the executive’s response. Whether all technical writers were once programmers or none of them
were, we still cannot determine is the discrepancy in compensation is acceptable because we still
don’t know enough about either group’s seniority.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Since the technical writers receive, on
average, 20 percent more in salary and benefits than the programmers and salary and benefits are
directly tied to seniority, the compensation discrepancy can only be justified by an average difference
in seniority. If the average seniority of technical writers exceeds that of programmers, the pay
difference may be acceptable. If not, the executive’s attempt to address the programmer’s concern is
invalid and seniority cannot explain the discrepancy in overall compensation.
Answer choice (C): Whether or not benefits and salary are linked to each other, we already know
that both are linked to position (i.e., whether an employee is a technical writer or a programmer) and
seniority. Since both the programmer and the executive refer to salary and benefits together, how the
two types of compensation relate to each other is irrelevant.
Answer choice (D): The executive’s background is irrelevant here. Even if she were once a technical
writer and was now trying to justify the pay scale of her former colleagues, the merit of her response
is entirely dependent on which group has seniority and should therefore be paid more.
Answer choice (E): Comparing the executive salary to the programmers’ salary is pointless.
Regardless of whom is paid more, the executive’s response requires further clarification.