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 hasdone 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
Pat’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 Mel’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 responds by reversing the reasoning for the failure of the raise, i.e. it is because of the fact that judges don't have teachers opportunities that the raise will have no impact and not the other way round. If my assumption is right then B should be the answer. I'll wait for your response. Thanks
GMAT the final frontie!!!.