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

Hi Punyata
Welcome to gmat club I'm glad to help.

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates [potential 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 [current members] teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:

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.
Correct. Mel talks about potential candidates, however Pat talks about current members

B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
Wrong. The argument does NOT talk about the cause of a change (the legislature’s move to raise the salary).

C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
Wrong. Pat just says the ban will have little or no negative effect. He does NOT talk anything about positive effect.

D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
Wrong. TEMPTING but wrong. Pat denies Mel’s claim WITH evidence in support. However, his evidence has problem itself.

E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group.
Wrong. TEMPTING but wrong. Pat said the change does NOT hurt (will have little or no negative effect) the current member. He did NOT say the change BENEFITS the current member. These logics are totally different..
For example: The new shopping outlet does not have negative effect to shopping malls in downtown. ==> It does not mean the new shopping outlet has positive effect to shopping malls in downtown.

TAKE AWAY:
Be aware of reverse logics
A does NOT hurt B ==> does not mean A supports B
A does NOT support B ==> does not mean A hurts B

Hope it helps.

It might help to see a different argument made that uses the same logic. Let's pretend Mel and Pat are two owners of a popular sports franchize.

Mel: We need to get better players. We don't offer high enough pay to get the best players to join our team. You want to raise the amount of money we offer, but that's not helpful, because at the same time you're putting it in the contract that they aren't allowed be in commercials!"

"Pat: That doesn't matter. Our players aren't in commercials anyway."

Written like this, the problem might be more obvious. "Wait, Pat... we're not talking about our *current* players. We're trying to get *new* players. Maybe those players really want to be in commercials. Maybe our players aren't in commercials because they aren't good enough to merit such business opportunities. If you don't allow the new, best players to be in commercials, they STILL won't play for us, even if our salary increases..."

C is very tempting. But the absence of negative effects isn't really Pat's flaw. Plus, Pat acknowledges there could be '*little* negative effect.' He doesn't outright argue there will be *no* negative effect (and that's what 'absence' means... You have to be very literal with GMAT language! "An absence of a negative effect" doesn't mean "The negatives are so miniscule it's worth it." It actually means "There is *no* negative effect." Pat does say that might be possible, but he also says there could be a *small* negative effect, but he clearly thinks it's so small it doesn't matter.

But it DOES matter. Because while it might be only a 'little' negative effect for CURRENT judges, it could be a HUGE negative effect for the NEW judges, the 'best candidates,' they are attempting to recruit.
_________________

[quote="JCLEONES"]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 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.

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.
I think it's the best choice since the evaluation from Pat take into account only the current members. maybe the change will affect potential members. Is it OA?

B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
I have some doubts regarding this choice but I actually don't see cause-effect relationship in the Pat's thought
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely
by pointing to the absence of negative effects

the absence of negative effects is the core of the argument
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support
of that denial

that's falseE. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group
necessarily benefit all members of that group. false

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 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.

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.CORRECT. Usage of WILL in the last sentence
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that changeINCORRECT
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely
by pointing to the absence of negative effectsPat says that the ban will have little OR no negative effectsTherefore, he does not entirely rule out the effects (negative or other). Just points to the gravity of the effects
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support
of that denialINCORRECT
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group
necessarily benefit all members of that group.There is no connection between delivering lectures and ability of the judges

I initially picked C. But OA given is A and hence I formulated the above reasoning

As to why the answer is NOT C: Pat doesn't say that there is positive effect (there is little or no negative effect)

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 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.

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...

the new legislature move proposes increasing the salary of judges(positive move) and also banning them from receiving money from lectures/teachings(negative move).

Pat believes their since their are very few judges existing judges who give lectures,the effect of -ve move is almost neglible.
this reasoning is flawed because it is taking into account only the existing group and not the prospective judges.
option A addresses this point

while option C says that Pat's reasoning is flawed because he "attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely
by pointing to the absence of negative effects"
"C" ASSUMES that Pat is right when he talks about "absence of negative effects",when it is clear that new rule DOES have negative effects(ie new rule isnt taking into consideration the potential members,who might have problem with 2nd part of new rule,which discourages them from joining the profession).

to attract the best candidates to the job - so we(well, Mel, but it is good to be sympathetic to the argument) are looking for what is favored by potential candidates and do not care about what current members do.

And Pat simply talks about current judges.

So, reading through choices was a breeze and I immediately chose A.

But I admit this problem is bit tricky. I tutor GMAT and two of my brighter students who recently tried this problem got it wrong. So, let me illustrate a fail-safe elimination based approach if one missed this critical fact during the first reading that the argument is about future candidates. Let's say we are simply looking for why raise in salary cant compensate ban on teaching although few judges teach.

A. the word 'potential' should make us think that we missed something. Good if you see connection. But if you don't, at least the second half of choice is spot on ie. Pat does provide evidence about effect on current members. So, don't eliminate even if your eyes don't light up

B, D - clearly wrong.

C - tempting choice..come back to it.
E - doesn't have much to say. increase in salary benefits all members and nothing being said about 'most able' members - so kinda illogical.

Reviewing choices C and A, Pat does admit to negative effects and does not deny them. So, C is wrong.

But, to be sure of the answer, at least at this stage of carefully re-reading the choice and perhaps glancing at the argument again, the word 'potential' should click.

Looking at options A and C
Though i agree withexplanation given by d3thknell that C" ASSUMES that Pat is right when he talks about "absence of negative effects",when it is clear that new rule DOES have negative effects(ie new rule isnt taking into consideration the potential members,who might have problem with 2nd part of new rule,which discourages them from joining the profession).
But I dont completely agree with Choice A too.. choice "A" mentions "By Providing Evidence"..But there is no evidence mentioned. Can someone please clarify?

Can someone clarify for me too, why option C is incorrect? All explanations in favor of option A or against option C I read before don't seem convincing enough. The source of this question is GmatPrep Exam Pack 1, so it is crucial for me to understand testmaker's logic here.

Even I chose the wrong answer initially. After going through the forum feel A is better choice. Here is my view on A.

Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best
Candidates to the job. - This line states that Currently Judges are involved in some other profession rather to be as judges since the pay scale is less 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.This line states that the more eligible candidate to be judges has chosen the profession as Teaching.

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. -- Pat is stating that "Since very few judges" --> he is talking about currently who ever is performing the role of a judge. But Mel statement is based on the candidate who are currently involved in teaching profession

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. --> Based on above desc, A fits in to it perfectly
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.

The answer to this question will come when we asses how Pat gave response to Mei.
Mei says that best candidates will still not be attracted some benefits have been removed that have been compensated by an increase in salary but this will have little incentive for able candidates to join now.
Pat replies that the salary increase does improve the situation as few judges give lectures.
Pat actually says that the increase in salary will attract candidates ( but he does not talk about the whether able candidates will still be attracted or not).


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.
-- Correct for the reason stated above.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
-- There is no cause and affect in this argument.
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects.
-- Out of scope.
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
-- Out of scope.
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group.
-- This is actually the opposite of how Pat replied.

A : Correct . Pat's response that very few judges teach is based on the current lot of judges. This is the very thing that Mel is advocating to change, since, they the current lot is inefficient.
B : Incorrect. Inability of judges to lecture or teach is not the basis of this change.
C : Incorrect. Pat does not give any evidence of positive effect.
D : Incorrect. Pat does not deny Mel's claim, he simply says the ban is of liitle or no consequence.
E : Incorrect . No talk of benefit to every member due to the change.

Very nice question! Mel says that some changes will fail to increase the attractiveness of the job for potential employees. Pat says, that the ban has no effect on current employees. So the answer is A.

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 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.

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.

In order to answer such Questions look for the unstated assumption.

M : Premise 1 : salary not enough.
Premise 2 : salary increased but judges not allowed to earn from teaching assignments.
Conclusion : Income still not enough
Assumption : because earlier there were no restrictions on earning from teaching assignments but now there is

Example : Earlier avg judge salary 100k
teaching assignments etc : avg pay : 20k
avg total income : 120k

Now judges avg salary : 110k
other income from teaching assignments etc : 0
Total avg= 110k

P : Premise : Most judges currently dont take extra teaching assignments/lectures. So little -ve effect or no -ve effect
Conclusion : salary enough after increase
Assumption : No option in the future to earn more from teaching assignments (even required by the judges). Current solution not considering the future judges and their potential need to earn more


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.
potential members and current members, what the differnce ? P talks about most current judges (Not good enough(
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
Not relevant
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
But pat does point out the -ve effects, he just says that little or no impact due to it
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
P does put evidence forth "most judges dont take lectures"
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group.
Bingo!! exactly our assumption, hence our answer

BTW i got it wrong in my test, but only cuz i was running out time. I doubt this is 700 level Q

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 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.

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.



I did it by process of elimination
My answer is A

Why not B?
The cause and effect relationship in his statement is completely sound.

Why not C?
He did'nt straight away said that there will no negative effect (absence of negative effects), instead he points of towards the possibility that there may be "little or no negative effect". (if little was not there then this was a good option)

Why not D?
He did give evidence that very few judges are involved in teaching and lectures.

Why not E?
This is completely irrelevant, no where stated.


I am not sure about why A should be right
Can anyone help?

And if you liked my explanations kudos please

Expert,
Could you clearly specify why option A is better answer over option C?

Option C is wrong because it says PAT is saying there will be no Negative effect(See here: by pointing to the absence of negative effects).

But actually Pat said there may be little negative effect. So, we cannot ignore this little effect and say no negative effect.

Option A is right because It says PAT is giving assurance about future based on current situations. It may happen that in future there are many judges who start receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements. Hence, we can not say, this ban "will" have little or no negative effect.

I hope that makes sense.
_________________

A is my go. mel talks about besties while Pat gives the situation as a whole i. e. including everyone.

Sent from my ONE A2003 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app