In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North America paid its reporters an average salary that was much lower than the average salary paid by its principle competitors to their reporters. An executive of the newspaper argued that this practice was justified,
since any shortfall that might exist in the reporters' salaries is fully compensated by the valuable training they receive through their assignments.Which one of the following, if true about the newspaper in 1992, most seriously undermines the justification offered by the executive?
(A) Senior reporters at the newspaper
earned as much as reporters of similar stature who worked for the newspaper’s principle competitors. - WRONG. Somewhat intriguing but the would require one to makes further assumption as in the number of seniors is same as is juniors. Thus, its an open book type of an option that goes in either direction.
(B) Most of the newspaper’s reporters had
worked there for more than ten years. - CORRECT. Training and a decade of experience behind for work goes against each other. They don't need training, only newbies need.
(C) The
circulation of the newspaper had recently reached a plateau, after it had increased steadily throughout the 1980s. - WRONG. Plateau is not related to training and for that to happen more assumptions are required. This one's like A only, approachwise not contentwise.
(D) The
union that represented reporters at the newspaper was
different from the union that represented reporters at the newspaper’s competitors. - WORNG. Irrelevant.
(E) The newspaper was widely read throughout continental
Europe and Great Britain as well as North America. - WRONG. Strengthens at best.
The highlighted text is the reasoning offered by the executive which must be tackled in such a way that it gets weakened.
Answer B.