Q15 - Sociologist: A contention of many

[asdarrow]

Can someone please explain this question? I think I got confused about the premise and conclusion, so I had a difficult time picking the correct, necessary assumption. Is the conclusion that a large wage differential will not cause social friction? Where does the statement about social friction arising from static wages fit into the premise/conclusion arrow flow? Thanks for any help!

[timmydoeslsat]

Our conclusion here is that the contention of the sociologist's colleagues is unfounded, that contention being the difference between the wages of the highest and lowest paid worker inevitably becoming a source of social friction.

Everything after that supports that statement.

- High difference in pay will allow companies to hire freely in response to changing conditions.

- Social friction arises not from large wage differences but from levels that are static or slow changing.

We know this is a necessary assumption question, so we are armed with our negation technique on the contending answer choice.

We want to think about the gaps in the argument. For instance, if social friction arises from static or slow changing wages, could it not be the case that hiring freely leads to that condition? Which would mean that there would be foundation for colleague's claim. There would be foundation because the high difference in pay ultimately leads to hire freely which leads to slow/static wages.

A) When companies can hire freely in response to changing conditions, wage levels do tend to be static or slow changing.

I ran the negation on this one from the start. This would kill the argument. We know that high difference in pay allows companies to hire freely, and if it were it true that when companies have this condition, it tends to do the very thing in which social friction arises, the argument is killed.

[chunsunb]

What if they tend to be static or slow changing, but not just ar a rate (i.e. At a lesser rate than) in a situtation where companies don't hire freely?

[ttunden]

so if you didn't realize that A was the gap or what had to be assumed, lets run through the other answer choices.

B- people reacting differently is out of scope. eliminate

C- expanding operations is out of scope. eliminate

D- out of scope as well. not only that, the Always is too strong to assume for a necessary question, at least typically.

E- dissatisfaction with your job is out of scope. eliminate.

That's how I got to A. I eliminated the rest and realized A was the one that was relevant and had to be absolutely assumed to derive the sociologists conclusion.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

.
Premise 1: Social friction arises not from large wage differences but from wage levels that are static and slow changing.
Premise 2 : Large disparities in wages enables companies to hire freely in response to changing conditions.
Intermediate conclusion: Wage differential should not cause any social friction.
Conclusion: The contention that the large disparity in wages will lead to social friction is unfounded.

The gap here appears to be between the second premise and the intermediate conclusion.
Assumption: Responding to changing conditions does not lead to wage levels that are static and slow changing

(A) Bingo.
(B) Completely irrelevant to the argument core. We don't know if the workers expect their wages to go up, nor we know how they react relative to those that others in regards to wage disparities.
(C) Completely irrelevant to the core like (B). Neither financial caution, nor the expansion of operations have anything to do with whether social friction will arise from the wage disparities.
(D) We need not assume that a company's ability to swiftly respond to changing conditions ALWAYS benefits workers. This is also irrelevant. Firstly, we don't know if the companies will be able to SWIFTLY respond to changing conditions, plus if such a response does not always benefit workers, the argument still stands.
This is potentially strengthens the argument, but it is far from being necessary. If negated, the argument still stands.
(E) This is completely out of scope. The fact that even the most relatively well paid workers MAY become dissatisfied if their wages become static need not be true in order for the argument to hold. Even if they may not be dissatisfied the argument still holds.

[JeremyK460]

Diagram:
L - large wage difference; H - companies hire freely; C - changing wage levels; S - social friction

Premise: L → H
Premise: not-C → S
Contrapositive: (not-S → C)
Conclusion: L → not-S

I took the contrapositive of the second premise and connected it to the conclusion.

Premise: L → H
Conclusion: L → not-S → C
Assumption: H → C

Attaching the premise gave me a clearer look at where the gap lies. I’m not too sure if I’m within the lines of valid-logic in creating that contrapositive, but it seemed fitting!

Premises:
Responding to wage difference changes means that companies will hire freely.
Social friction comes not from a large wage difference, but from wage levels that don’t really change.
No social friction suggests that wage levels are changing

Conclusion:
The large wage difference will not become a source of social friction.

Task: Necessary Assumption
I have to identify the conclusion & its function, the support & its function, analyze the premises/conclusion relationship, and identify what the argument is taking for granted.

Analysis:
Companies being able to hire freely → wage levels won’t be static or slow changing

Answer Choices:
(A) This is the right answer. A relationship between these two ideas is the assumption the argument needs in order to survive.

(B) People who expect their wages to rise, and how they react to wage disparities isn’t fundamentally important to the argument.

(C) Financial caution isn’t brought up in / indicative of the argument. Side note: even though the idea of financial caution rubs me as irrelevant, I made sure by going over the text. There’s nothing of the information presented in the argument that entails financial caution.

(D) Regardless of a company’s swift response to changing conditions benefitting its workers, the argument can still get to its conclusion. A company’s ability to respond to changes is not the same as a company’s ability to hire freely. The argument isn’t taking for granted that benefiting workers leads to no social friction.

(E) Someone who is well-paid might not be among one of the highest paid. The well-paid workers class is not relevant to the argument.

[GreatM128]

Thanks for the help as I had a similar test and didn't know the right answer. I'm currently writing an essay about sociological imagination in a sociology class and I thought to approach the answer to this question from this position. I also used the help link as I could not find the answer to this question. This thread is helpful.