Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 Jan 2017, 11:32

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 734
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 4

Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2007, 05:54
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job. The legislatureâ€™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.
Patâ€™s response to Mel is inadequate in that it
A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members
of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D. simply denies Melâ€™s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group
necessarily benefit all members of that group.
If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 20
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: official salary for judges [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2007, 06:11
aurobindo wrote:
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job. The legislatureâ€™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.
Patâ€™s response to Mel is inadequate in that it
A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members
of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D. simply denies Melâ€™s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group
necessarily benefit all members of that group.

hai aurobindo

I think the answer is E. Only it seems the best.
senthil
Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 921
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: official salary for judges [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2007, 08:26

EDITING: Agree with C now. I completely missed the last part of the Pat's argument that says that it will have little or no negative effect. Whereas Mel's argument was that nothing had improved.
Besides, "Since very few judges teach or give lectures" could be interpreted to mean that Pat was talking abt judges in general, present or future. - so A is not necessarily true

aurobindo wrote:
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job. The legislatureâ€™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.
Patâ€™s response to Mel is inadequate in that it
A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members
of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D. simply denies Melâ€™s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group
necessarily benefit all members of that group.

Last edited by mbagal1 on 31 Jan 2007, 12:08, edited 2 times in total.
Manager
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 51
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: official salary for judges [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2007, 08:42
I think C.

It is possible that salary hike is less. And after resrtricting judges from lecture and teaching activities impact of this salary hike is not enough to improve the situation. Hence just by saying that very less judges are involved in other activities is not enough to say that salary hike does improve the situation. Or in other words it is as good as to say that "certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects "
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 392
Location: Boston, MA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: official salary for judges [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2007, 09:47
aurobindo wrote:
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job. The legislatureâ€™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.
Patâ€™s response to Mel is inadequate in that it
A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members
of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D. simply denies Melâ€™s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group
necessarily benefit all members of that group.

Pat assumes that since no judges currently teach/lecture that it wont have a negative effect. When in fact, these are the judges they are trying to attract â€“ the best candidates may be those that will teach/lecture.

I think A is the BEST answer but I cannot argue why C is wrong. We should be able to give reason for every wrong answer. Can anyone help? This CR is killing me!
SVP
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1559
Location: Ann Arbor
Schools: Ross '10
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 189 [0], given: 1

Re: CR: official salary for judges [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2007, 09:56
buckkitty wrote:
I think A is the BEST answer but I cannot argue why C is wrong. We should be able to give reason for every wrong answer. Can anyone help? This CR is killing me!

Pat does not say that there is no negative effect. Pat acknowledges that there is a negative effect(Not being able to accept money for lectures), but points out that the impact of the negative effect is very less(Very few judges teach or lecture).

I would consider C if it said 'attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the very limited impact of its negative effects

I believe A is the best answer.
_________________

My Profile/GMAT/MBA Story
http://www.gmatclub.com/forum/111-t59345

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Last edited by ncp on 31 Jan 2007, 22:32, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 392
Location: Boston, MA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: official salary for judges [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2007, 10:55
buckkitty wrote:
I think A is the BEST answer but I cannot argue why C is wrong. We should be able to give reason for every wrong answer. Can anyone help? This CR is killing me!

Pat does not say that there is no negative effect. Pat acknowledges that there is a negative effect(Not being able to accept money for lectures), but points out that the impact of the negative effect is very less(Very few doctors teach or lecture).

I would consider C if it said 'attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the very limited impact of its negative effects

I believe A is the best answer.

So Pat is not saying that currently there is no negative effect (because no one teaches/lectures) but that there WILL BE no negative effect?

What's the difference?
Pat says "the ban will have little or no negative effect."
C says, "by pointing to the absence of negative effects"

Isnt that the same thing???
SVP
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1559
Location: Ann Arbor
Schools: Ross '10
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 189 [0], given: 1

Re: CR: official salary for judges [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2007, 11:13
buckkitty wrote:
buckkitty wrote:
I think A is the BEST answer but I cannot argue why C is wrong. We should be able to give reason for every wrong answer. Can anyone help? This CR is killing me!

Pat does not say that there is no negative effect. Pat acknowledges that there is a negative effect(Not being able to accept money for lectures), but points out that the impact of the negative effect is very less(Very few judges teach or lecture).

I would consider C if it said 'attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the very limited impact of its negative effects

I believe A is the best answer.

So Pat is not saying that currently there is no negative effect (because no one teaches/lectures) but that there WILL BE no negative effect?

What's the difference?
Pat says "the ban will have little or no negative effect."
C says, "by pointing to the absence of negative effects"

Isnt that the same thing???

No, they are not the same thing. There is a BIG difference between 0 and little. In fact, this is a standard trap in GMAT. Candidates often think that certain words are identical in meaning, but they are not.

For instance, many people often confuse 'rarely' with 'never'. Here is one of my earlier posts where I pointed this out. GMAT test makers know that most students will not be able to make this subtle differentiation under time and exam pressure.

http://www.gmatclub.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=278334

In the current case, pat says that there will be little impact. This does not mean there is no impact. So IMHO, C is incorrect.
_________________

My Profile/GMAT/MBA Story
http://www.gmatclub.com/forum/111-t59345

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Last edited by ncp on 31 Jan 2007, 22:33, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 392
Location: Boston, MA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2007, 11:58
well, if it is, then that's a cheap trick.
I certainly understand that rarely != never and that this type of language is a GMAT trap.
but IMO, "Little to no" is synonomous with "none".

Guess I will have to drill this into my head if the answer is A
SVP
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1559
Location: Ann Arbor
Schools: Ross '10
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 189 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2007, 19:34
Can we have the OA and OE?
_________________

My Profile/GMAT/MBA Story
http://www.gmatclub.com/forum/111-t59345

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1134
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2007, 19:38
Nice CR! Give me A!

Pat assumes that (most of) the candiates also will not teach or give lectures when they become judges.

A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members (future candidates) of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members (few judges today teach or give lectures).
Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 734
Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 79 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2007, 02:33
Can we have the OA and OE?

OA is A. Sorry. I dont have OE.
Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 921
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2007, 02:50
Crap, shows I shouldn't keep second guessing myself. Click an answer and move on..
01 Feb 2007, 02:50
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
18 Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low 1 24 Aug 2013, 03:40
20 Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low 23 25 Jan 2010, 01:00
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low 4 19 Jun 2008, 03:32
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low 19 12 Jun 2008, 16:24
18 Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low 25 14 Jan 2008, 11:32
Display posts from previous: Sort by