Barnes: The two newest employees at this company

1. Salary paid is too high compared to what is paid to the other new employees with normal tasks
2. Tasks assigned are too complex for the normal inexperienced workers.

There can be an Alternate reasoning that 2 new employees are EXPERIENCED.

But BARNES has reached a CONCLUSION that both the SALARY and the COMPLEXITY of the job SHOULD BE REDUCED

ASSUMPTION: SO BARNES' ASSUMPTION is that the 2 NEW EMPLOYEES are INEXPERIENCED

What the argument says ?

2 new employees have a) Salaries which are very high for simple tasks assigned to new employees
b) They have been given duties which are normally meant for experienced people.

Based on which he says their salaries and complexity of the tasks should both be reduced , what Barnes assumes is that the new employees are newbies and not experienced people . Example : If i have recently shifted a job to a new company i will be a new employee there but i do have past experience which deems me to get complex tasks and a higher salary .

Coming back to the choices

(A) The duties of the two newest employees are not less complex than any others in the company. Explanation : Not relevant since other companies are not taken into account
(B) It is because of the complex duties assigned that the two newest employees are being paid more than is usually paid to newly hired employees.
Even if this is assumed it does not help to bridge the gap of the conclusion i.e reduction in their salary
(C) The two newest employees are not experienced at their occupations. Clearly nails the answer choice .
(D) Barnes was not hired at a higher-than-average starting salary. We are not concerned about Barnes
(E) The salaries of the two newest employees are no higher than the salaries that other companies pay for workers with a similar level of experience.
We are not considering other companies here

Answer is C

The argument concludes that: the salaries and the complexity of the duties of these two newest employees should be reduced.
The basis for this:
- There are 2 new workers.
- Their starting salaires are too high for new employees. --> should be reduced.
- Their tasks are too complex for inexperienced employees. --> should be reduced.
==> The gap between the 2 new workers & inexperienced employees.
C fills the gap.

 

­Sort of. B isn't telling us that the tasks are complex, since as you've said we already know that. Rather, it's making a causal connection between premises: the pay is high BECAUSE the task is complex. However, the argument doesn't rely on any particular reason for the high pay. It just says that the pay is higher than expected for a new employee, so it should be reduced. B doesn't really have an effect one way or another. It just links the two factors. IF the complex tasks are appropriate, then maybe the high pay is, too. But if the tasks aren't appropriate, then maybe the author is right and both the tasks and the pay should be downgraded. Since the assumption is compatible with both the argument and its negation, then it isn't necessary at all--it's irrelevant. 

In options A comparison to other workers of the company makes this a out of scope option and thus incorrect
Similarly in option E comparison to other companies makes this a out of scope option and thus incorrect
In option D Barnes salary is discussed which has no relation with the given argument and thus incorrect
option B is partially true option which may or may not be true
If we negate option C then the conclusion completely falls apart
correct choice - C

I somehow feel option B weakens the argument. It canot be an assumption.

C is already stated in the argument so how can it be an assumption ??

I have the same question as above, i deliberately left C, as it's bringing the point which is already stated in the premise.

As many people have selected B. I would like to explain it.
I was down to B and C, and i applied negation.


If you negate B then we get

It is because of the complex duties assigned that the two newest employees are being paid NOT more than is usually paid to newly hired employees.

If the above is the case then the salaries and the complexity of the duties of these two newest employees does not need to be reduced.



If we negate option c then the conclusion will be destroyed.
So C deserves the respect.

i wrote down 3 assumptions that came to my mind:

1. emp shd be paid the normal rate and assigned normal duties
2. these 2 emp will not be able to perform the complex duties so reduce salary
3. these 2 emps do not have the prior exp to do the complex duties

#3 is from the "too complex for inexperienced workers"
means EXP ------> ability to do complex duties

which is what C is

Barnes: The two newest employees at this company have salaries that are too high for the simple tasks normally assigned to new employees and duties that are too complex for inexperienced workers. Hence, the salaries and the complexity of the duties of these two newest employees should be reduced.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which Barnes's argument depends?

Here two things are going at the same time. Higher salaries and complexities of work for lack of experience workers.

I chose (C), though still not convinced, because it attacks both at the same time, but in the premise there is no connection between the two therefore it is not an assumption.

But in (B), it only attacks the premise about experience of the employees and leaving the payment part?

AndrewN

Barnes argues that the two newest employees at the company have salaries that are too high for their simple tasks and duties that are too complex for inexperienced workers. Option (C) states, "The two newest employees are not experienced at their occupations."

Option (C) does indeed represent a crucial assumption underlying Barnes's argument. The argument's effectiveness relies on the premise that the two newest employees are inexperienced at their occupations. If these employees were experienced, it would weaken the argument's assertion that their salaries are too high for their level of experience and that their duties are too complex for inexperienced workers.

WHY NOT B, THE REASON TO NEGATE B option is that
the complexity of task for an unexperienced worker is not an assumption but a reality, that unexperienced exmployees can't do where in option C states the two newest employees are unexperienced and this can be an assumption for barner which lead them to a conclusion of reducing their complex task and salaries.

DOES IT SOUND CORRECT?