PT 54 LR section 2 #9 'Museum Visitor'

User avatar
bayreuth
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:25 pm

PT 54 LR section 2 #9 'Museum Visitor'

Postby bayreuth » Sat Sep 03, 2011 4:58 pm

I would not normally need to post for a question but this one really has me:

The correct necessary assumption choice (A) implies that some museum employees will be affected by the mandate, but the visitor only states as a premise that the mandate will cause an increase in the museum's expenses. I can easily conceive of other ways in which the mandate would increase expenses, such as increasing the fees the museum pays for outside services and products. Therefore, even if the museum had no employees affected by the mandate, the museum's expenses would nevertheless increase so the assumption is not necessary.

Can someone please critique this logic for me? I was under the assumption that premises should be accepted as they are given. Thanks!

User avatar
maru
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:44 pm

Re: PT 54 LR section 2 #9 'Museum Visitor'

Postby maru » Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:00 pm

But we can't assume that the cost of 3rd party services will go up as a result of the increase. Perhaps those 3rd party contractors' revenues do exceed their expenses so they won't have to make adjustments to what they charge the museum for their services.

ETA: If you don't make the above assumption, the argument isn't weakened. Whereas, if you don't assume that some of museum's employees aren't paid significantly more than the minimum wage, then it does weaken the argument. If you negate the answer, it's "All of the museum's employees are paid significantly more than the minimum wage" which means that they won't be affected by the new mandate.

ETA#2: I should add that I feel like a complete fraud answering questions like these... Please someone correct me if I'm mistaken...

User avatar
bayreuth
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: PT 54 LR section 2 #9 'Museum Visitor'

Postby bayreuth » Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:43 pm

You are correct that we cannot assume the third party expenses will increase, yet we have no need for this assumption. I included the example to demonstrate that the 'required assumption' was not actually required for the museum visitor's argument. If the museum's expenses are increased, as presumed by the visitor, for any reason except a required wage increase to some of the employees, as I have proven is conceivable, then the 'correct' assumption choice A is not actually required. I do not understand how a strengthening/weakening analysis is relevant to this 'assumption required' question, other than to select the best choice available. I am concerned with the logic inherent in the presumption made by the test that choice A is in fact a required assumption.

User avatar
maru
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:44 pm

Re: PT 54 LR section 2 #9 'Museum Visitor'

Postby maru » Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:32 pm

The museum visitor doesn't just presume that expenses will increase, but that they will increase as a result of the mandate. Therefore, if the mandate doesn't affect their expenses, then the conclusion would not be valid. So the visitor needs to assume that some of the employees' wages will be affected.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: PT 54 LR section 2 #9 'Museum Visitor'

Postby suspicious android » Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:54 pm

I think you have a point, honestly. Basically the argument says "since they're raising the minimum wage, the museum's expenses will go up." Well, is that because their labor costs will increase or just because the minimum wage hike will cause inflation in general?

Maybe you could think of it this way: what if it's true that everyone makes significantly more than minimum wage at the museum? Well, would it really be true that the museum must either raise admission or decrease services? Couldn't they just cut their bloated employee salaries? Perhaps this assumption described by (A) is part of the reason there is no third option available other than raising admission or decreasing services.

Still, interesting question.

User avatar
LSAT World
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: PT 54 LR section 2 #9 'Museum Visitor'

Postby LSAT World » Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:57 pm

For what it's worth:

"This question asks us to identify the assumption required by the museum visitor’s argument. The visitor states that the museum-going public will be hurt by a slight increase to the minimum wage, since the museum will have to increase their operating expenses, causing one of two effects, both of which would hurt the museum-going public. This requires the assumption that some of the museum employees are not paid significantly more than minimum wage, because if they were, a slight increase to the minimum wage would not affect their pay (and, therefore, the museum’s operating expenses). (A) is the credited response."
Last edited by LSAT World on Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: PT 54 LR section 2 #9 'Museum Visitor'

Postby suspicious android » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:43 pm

LSAT World wrote: . . . (A) is the credited response.


Did you even read the OP's question about this? Or any of the thread?

User avatar
bayreuth
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:25 pm

Re: PT 54 LR section 2 #9 'Museum Visitor'

Postby bayreuth » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:57 pm

suspicious android wrote:
LSAT World wrote: . . . (A) is the credited response.


Did you even read the OP's question about this? Or any of the thread?


Thank You




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: addie1412, Alexandros, amiliatoe, BrainsyK, Instrumental, MSNbot Media, Pozzo, sethnoorzad, Vino.Veritas and 11 guests