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 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
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.
Would go with A.... as the same is best option. Pat does give his analysis on checking the current members of the group being discussed. He doesn't take into account the future aspect of it... What if more judges begin to teach!!!
E was a close contender but the wording talks about most able members.... this implies that judges who do not teach are most able and hence this is incorrect.
Hence A should be correct...
If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!!
|Do not post questions with OA|Please underline your SC questions while posting|Try posting the explanation along with your answer choice|
|For CR refer Powerscore CR Bible|For SC refer Manhattan SC Guide|
~~Better Burn Out... Than Fade Away~~