Economist: The wages of many of the lowest-paid corporate employees in

Question

Economist: The wages of many of the lowest-paid corporate employees in this country would be protected from cuts by enacting a maximum wage law that prohibits executives at any corporation from earning more than, say, 50 times what the corporation’s lowest-paid employees in this country earn. Currently, some executives try to increase corporate profits—and their own salaries—by cutting the pay and benefits of their corporations’ employees. A maximum wage law would remove this incentive for these executives to cut the wages of their lowest-paid employees.

Which one of the following is an assumption the economist’s argument requires?

A. All of the lowest-paid corporate employees in the economist’s country are employed at corporations at which the executives earn more than 50 times what the corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country earn.

B. Some corporate executives who cut the pay of their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country in order to increase their own salaries already earn less than 50 times what their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country earn.

C. No corporate executives in the economist’s country would raise the wages of their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country unless such a maximum wage law linked executive wages to those of their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country.

D. If corporate executives could not increase their own salaries by cutting the pay and benefits of their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country, they would never change the wages of those employees.

E. If such a maximum wage law were enacted in the economist’s country, one or more corporate executives would not cut the pay and benefits of their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country.

Bunuel · Answer

Thank you for your post! I've relocated this discussion to the appropriate Critical Reasoning forum, made some edits for clarity, renamed it, and included the Official Answer. For your reference, please review the posting rules of our site before submitting any new queries. Here's the link: https://gmatclub.com/forum/-posting-rul ... 08733.html I hope you find this helpful.

TanyaJ · Answer

Thanks!

May I know what did I do wrong while posting so that I don't make the same mistake again?

Bunuel · Answer

Certainly, I'd be happy to help clarify what went wrong with your previous post so you can avoid repeating the same errors. Your question was posted in an incorrect forum; it should have been posted in the CR (Critical Reasoning) section. Additionally, the topic of your post was not appropriately titled, and you failed to provide the OA (Official Answer). For future reference, you can review the forum rules at this link: https://gmatclub.com/forum/-posting-rul ... 08733.html I hope this guidance is beneficial.

TargetKellogg2024 · Answer

Economist: The wages of  many  of the lowest-paid corporate employees in this country would be protected from cuts by enacting a maximum wage law that prohibits executives at  any  corporation from earning more than, say, 50 times what the corporation’s lowest-paid employees in this country earn. Currently,  some  executives try to increase corporate profits—and their own salaries—by cutting the pay and benefits of their corporations’ employees. A maximum wage law would remove this incentive for these executives to cut the wages of their lowest-paid employees.
 
Analysis: This is a "plan and outcome" type of question.
Current situation - in order to maximize the profits and their own salaries, some executives cut down the wages of lowest-paid employees
Plan - A limit of, let's say, x50 will be put on the salary of the executives 
Outcome - the salary of the lowest-paid employees will not be cut

Which one of the following is an assumption the economist’s argument requires?
 
We need to find the assumption.

A. All of the lowest-paid corporate employees in the economist’s country are employed at corporations at which the executives earn more than 50 times what the corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country earn.
   Negation: At least 1 lowest-paid corporate employee is employed at a corporation in which the executive earns >50x the lowest-paid employee
Analysis:

B. Some corporate executives who cut the pay of their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country in order to increase their own salaries already earn less than 50 times what their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country earn.
   Well, if the executives already earn less than 50x the lowest salary, then putting a cap on a higher limit would not impact the company's decision. The company's executives could still cut the salaries of lowest-paid employees to increase or maintain the salaries of the excutives

C. No corporate executives in the economist’s country would raise the wages of their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country unless such a maximum wage law linked executive wages to those of their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country.
   Negation: At least 1 corporate executive will increase the wage of the lowest-paid employees even if the new law is not enacted.
This is not necessary for the argument to hold true. The argument speaks about the impact after enacting the law

D. If corporate executives could not increase their own salaries by cutting the pay and benefits of their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country, they would never change the wages of those employees.
   This is a sufficient, but not necessary condition. This provides support to the argument that the executives cut the salaries of the lowest-paid employees to pay for their own salaries

E. If such a maximum wage law were enacted in the economist’s country, one or more corporate executives would not cut the pay and benefits of their corporations’ lowest-paid employees in the economist’s country. 
  Negation: If such a law is enacted, at least one executive would cut the pay of the lowest-paid employees. 
Banger! If the negation holds true, our outcome is not achieved.

Therefore,  the correct answer is E.

Arunava7393 · Answer

Very Difficult question. I got it wrong. Then right at later time. Then wrong again at later time even after solving it twice days before. 💀

Economist: The wages of many of the lowest-paid corporate employees in

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Economist: The wages of many of the lowest-paid corporate employees in

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards