Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job. The...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Misc.

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

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

attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members

mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change

attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects

simply denies Mel's claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial

assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job.	What it says: Judge salaries have been consistently insufficient to draw top-quality candidates What it does: Sets up the foundational problem that Mel wants to address What it is: Mel's opening premise about the core issue
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.	What it says: The salary increase failed because it came with restrictions on outside income from speaking and teaching What it does: Explains why Mel thinks the legislature's solution didn't work - connects the salary raise to income restrictions What it is: Mel's main claim with supporting reasoning Visualization: Before: Judge salary $80k + $20k from lectures = $100k total income After: Judge salary $90k + $0 from lectures = $90k total income (net decrease)
No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation.	What it says: Pat directly disagrees with Mel's conclusion about the salary raise What it does: Challenges Mel's entire argument by taking the opposite position What it is: Pat's counter-conclusion
Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.	What it says: Most judges don't earn money from teaching or speaking, so the ban doesn't hurt them What it does: Provides Pat's reasoning for why Mel's concern about the ban is misplaced What it is: Pat's supporting premise Visualization: 100 judges total: 10-15 judges affected by lecture ban, 85-90 judges only benefit from salary increase

Argument Flow:

Mel presents a problem (low judge salaries) and argues that the legislature's solution failed because the salary increase came with income restrictions. Pat counters by saying the solution actually works because most judges weren't affected by those restrictions anyway.

Main Conclusion:

There are two competing conclusions: Mel argues the salary raise didn't improve judge recruitment, while Pat argues it really does improve the situation.

Logical Structure:

Mel uses cause-and-effect reasoning (salary increase + ban = no net improvement), while Pat uses statistical reasoning (since few judges are affected by the ban, most benefit from the raise). The question stem suggests Pat's response has a flaw in addressing Mel's argument.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Misc. - This is asking us to identify a flaw or inadequacy in Pat's reasoning. We need to spot what's wrong with how Pat responds to Mel's argument.

Precision of Claims

Mel claims the salary raise 'has done nothing' (absolute) while Pat claims it 'really does improve' (quality improvement). Pat's evidence is about 'very few judges' (quantity/frequency) being affected by the ban.

Strategy

We need to identify logical gaps or flaws in Pat's response. Pat is trying to counter Mel's argument, but we should look for:

Does Pat address the right issue?
Does Pat's reasoning actually support the conclusion?
Are there logical mistakes in Pat's approach?

The key insight is that Mel's concern might be about attracting NEW candidates (the best ones), while Pat talks about CURRENT judges.

Answer Choices Explained

attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members

This correctly identifies Pat's flaw. Pat tries to assess how the salary change will affect potential members (future judge candidates that Mel wants to attract) by providing evidence about current members (existing judges who rarely teach or lecture). This is problematic because the best potential candidates might be exactly the type of accomplished individuals who DO give lectures and teach - unlike current judges. Pat's evidence about current judges tells us nothing about whether the policy will attract better future candidates.

mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change

This describes confusing cause and effect, but Pat doesn't make this error. Pat clearly understands that the salary raise is the cause and improved judge recruitment is the supposed effect. Pat doesn't mix up what's causing what.

attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects

While Pat does point to absence of negative effects (few judges affected by the ban), Pat goes further by explicitly stating that the raise 'really does improve the situation.' Pat makes a positive claim, not just an absence-of-negative-effects argument.

simply denies Mel's claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial

This is incorrect because Pat does provide evidence - specifically, that very few judges teach or give lectures. We can disagree with whether this evidence is relevant or sufficient, but Pat definitely puts forward evidence rather than simply denying Mel's claim.

assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group

Pat doesn't make any claims about what benefits 'the most able members' versus 'all members' of the group. Pat's argument is about the frequency of judges being affected by the ban, not about differential benefits to different skill levels within the judge population.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...