nanagyanewa
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 32
Joined: July 13th, 2010
 
 
 

Q17 - In 1992, a major newspaper

by nanagyanewa Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:14 pm

Hello,

Could someone please help me with this question? I chose C because I assumed that if their circulation has decreased, there probably aren't that many assignments from which the employees could gain valuable training. I don't understand why B is right. Any help will be greatly appreciated
User avatar
 
bbirdwell
Thanks Received: 806
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 807
Joined: April 16th, 2009
 
This post thanked 3 times.
 
 

Re: Q17 - In 1992, a major newspaper

by bbirdwell Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:09 pm

Hi there. So, that was not a good assumption that you made regarding circulation and assignments. There is no correlation between the two given in the argument.

It is reasonable to infer, though, that after 10 years on the job, "training" is long since over. To tell someone who's been on the job for 10 years that they make less than their peers because they get valuable training is pretty poor reasoning. That's how unpaid internships are justified, not low salaries for veteran employees.
I host free online workshop/Q&A sessions called Zen and the Art of LSAT. You can find upcoming dates here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/zen-and-the-art.cfm
 
rsmorale
Thanks Received: 3
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 37
Joined: February 20th, 2011
 
 
trophy
Most Thankful
 

Re: Q17 - ; In 1998, a major paper...

by rsmorale Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:01 pm

I chose C initially too, but upon reviewing the question I realized that the newspaper need not be widely circulated in order to have valuable training assignments. It could very well be a local superstar. The reasoning in C alone does not weaken the argument.

Brian's explanation for B better suits the bill. If most employees were 10+ year veterans...where exactly would they be moving on to? Why would they even need the training? It's a huge jump to make, but the answer choice just needs to cast doubt on the justification, not destroy it completely.
 
goriano
Thanks Received: 8
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 113
Joined: December 03rd, 2011
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q17 - In 1992, a major newspaper

by goriano Sun May 13, 2012 3:31 pm

Does (A) strengthen the argument instead of weaken?

Also, I'm having trouble making the assumption that after 10+ years on the job, reporters wouldn't be receiving any more "valuable training" that could compensate for their low salaries. Isn't there something like "continuous improvement" in the workforce?
 
kaseyb002
Thanks Received: 4
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 23
Joined: July 12th, 2012
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q17 - In 1992, a major newspaper

by kaseyb002 Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:03 pm

I suppose I'm setting the bar too high, but the 10 year assumption seemed like too big of a leap for me. Perhaps to get the real training you need in newspaper before you really become a great writer takes like 20 years.

I notice I get the most questions wrong when I don't understand what the LSAT writers are trying to hint at. In this case, "in 10 years, training should be over".
User avatar
 
WaltGrace1983
Thanks Received: 166
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 844
Joined: March 30th, 2013
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q17 - ; In 1998, a major paper...

by WaltGrace1983 Wed Apr 30, 2014 2:20 pm

rsmorale wrote:I chose C initially too, but upon reviewing the question I realized that the newspaper need not be widely circulated in order to have valuable training assignments. It could very well be a local superstar. The reasoning in C alone does not weaken the argument.


But all this reasoning about valuable training and circulation is irrelevant. We don't care about the actual newspaper; we care about what the newspaper employees get paid. The newspaper could be a magazine stationed in someone's garage that gets circulated to 4 houses. Either way, this doesn't matter at all! We want to talk about pay and how this justification about training isn't adequate.

goriano wrote:Does (A) strengthen the argument instead of weaken?


I think it justifies the practice of paying less $$$ a little bit more because it shows that the chasm between what the newspaper pays and what its competitors pay isn't that big of a deal. However, this is too limited of a scope (we are talking about averages and this answer choice talks about specific roles). Either way, this definitely doesn't weaken!

goriano wrote:Also, I'm having trouble making the assumption that after 10+ years on the job, reporters wouldn't be receiving any more "valuable training" that could compensate for their low salaries. Isn't there something like "continuous improvement" in the workforce?


I see what your saying but I would argue that this still isn't enough of a reason to justify a lower pay. You are making a blanket statement - jobs will give you continuous training throughout your career. I agree. However, does this justify why ONE company pays less than ANOTHER company? Not at all! From your statement, we would assume that every company should still be equal if training was the only thing being considered (and in this case, it is!).

You see what I mean?

(C), (D), and (E) are totally irrelevant. (A) kind of strengthens. (B) is the only one that makes sense. We can very reasonably assume that training is not a reason to justify lower $$$ if the employees have been working there for so long.
 
mr13n
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 3
Joined: November 28th, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q17 - In 1992, a major newspaper

by mr13n Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:01 pm

I, too, chose A because I felt that a senior reporter would have had more experience than a regular one, but it never makes that comparison. B is better at pointing out the flaw in the justification.
 
hayleychen12
Thanks Received: 0
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 35
Joined: March 08th, 2017
 
 
 

Re: Q17 - In 1992, a major newspaper

by hayleychen12 Sun Mar 19, 2017 3:22 am

I still don't understand why B is the right answer, since in the stimulus, it says" valuable training they receive through their assignments", I thought that the "training" here is not the "training for new employees" but the training experience that be constantly provided.
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 2811
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Q17 - In 1992, a major newspaper

by ohthatpatrick Tue Mar 21, 2017 2:52 pm

Yeah, unfortunately they mean "training" as in "training new / young employees".

Even though, in a sense, we ALWAYS keep learning no matter how long we work at a job, so in that sense "the training never ends", the "training phase" of a job is clearly understood to be a finite phase in the beginning of one's employment.

In the context of "We're paying them less, because look at the experience they're getting!", we can judge "training" to be something that provides extra value.

People will often agree to be low paid or unpaid interns when they are looking to gain valuable experience they don't already have.

That's the sort of "training" this executive is selling.

If you had worked at this paper for more than ten years, and you were making less than the average salary at a competing paper, wouldn't you be bothered?

If the boss said, "Yeah, but look at the training you're getting!"
you might be like, "I've been reporting for over a decade! I'm an experienced reporter who deserves to be paid more."
 
AbhishekM843
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 5
Joined: November 01st, 2018
 
 
 

Re: Q17 - In 1992, a major newspaper

by AbhishekM843 Wed Nov 14, 2018 3:36 am

ohthatpatrick wrote:If the boss said, "Yeah, but look at the training you're getting!"
you might be like, "I've been reporting for over a decade! I'm an experienced reporter who deserves to be paid more."


But, we don't know if the employees who worked there for 10 years and the people who are getting paid less are overlapping.

I thought they could be mutually exclusive, and in that scenario, 51% of the reporters had 10 years experience and they got paid the same amount as competitive newspapers, and the remaining 49% of the reporters are new and got paid significantly less, thus skewing the average.

So, B doesn't have to weaken the argument.