In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North

IMO,

Training is something that even the oldest of executives undergo and 'relevant training' is no doubt useful across different sections( interms of number of years of experience) of employees

I'll go with A - The executive, while saying that shortfall in salary is compensated by valuable training, is assuming that the salaries are already less.

A says that reporters in this news paper are paid as much as those of ones working for the competitors. This undermines the assumption in the argument

Cheers,
Unplugged

What a stupid question but I'll also go with B despite not knowing how long most of the reporters in the other company worked for.

something is clearly missing with this question. If this newspaper pays average salary, then what is the issue? If it were to pay below average salary, then that short fall would be satisfied by the training offered.
In any event, senior reporters were to make as much money as those at competitors, then the value added by training is unjustified and hence, the exec's argument is undermined. Hence, A.

Actually there is a problem with average salary. Any one wants to get paid the maximum for a position. The position will have a range and every one wants the top dollar. The problem is company is justifying that Joe Bloggs at this company with X years of experience will get the avg sal in the market, a salry less than what his peers with same skills and experience at a diff company, gets, by saying that training is worth the amount that is not paid.

We need to prove it is not justified.

A & B are both close.

A says that Senior reporters are not paid the average but paid the similar rates out side. Hey! They got trained too and they are still getting training just like any other one . So they should receive less as well. They are not so there is a double standard. Is the double standard justified? No Is the practice justified? probably because the management considers only the junior reporters for this practice.

B says Most R worked for 10 years. Not all. So if most of them worked for 10 years or more, they have gained experience but it does not matter as the company is insisting that less amount paid is equal to the ongoing learning in assignments. Do people who have 10 years of experience need training? No, Hence not justified

I chose B over A but would not be surprised if it is A.

I guess I'll be the loner that will go with C.

If the circulation of the newspaper plateaued, most likely they will not receive additional assignments, and therefore would not receive any value from them.

replyspg, y r u not posting OA for all ur posts?

All - I am so sorry that I do not have OA for these questions. Please forgive me

The credited response is B.

This is a logical reasoning question from the June 1999 LSAT (question # 17 of the third section within the test).

There is a portion of the stimulus that was not included in the original post.

The stimulus should read as follows:

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.

I didn't like any of the answers, but narrowed my selection down to A and B, finally guessing A. I really didn't like B (I think I may have over thought this answer choice) because, to me, it seemed perfectly reasonable to believe that the reporters could continue to gain experience after having worked with the paper for more than ten years. While the weakening effects of A seemed negligible, B (at the time) seemed wholly irrelevant.

My biggest issue with B is that it requires the test taker to make the assumption that no more experience can be gained after 10 years of work.

This entire section of the test seemed to be filled with some pretty terrible crafted questions, # 17 being no exception.

OA added and bumping for further discussion

I narrowed choices down to B and E. Although I was more into B, I still don't see why E is irrelevant.
Well, even if they had worked for more than 10 years, we have no info regarding WE of competitors.
Using similar assumption we could deduce that principle competitors may be local (national) papers, and if the paper is widely circulated not only in NA, then the paper's revenues might far overcome its' competitors', and so the paper might have more profits, part of which they could use for extending its labor expences.

nurba92, the argument is that: Because they get better training, therefore it is OK that they are paid less.

(E), which talks about circulation rate, has absolutely nothing to do with helping or hurting this argument.

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?

Very poor question IMO. Doesn't matter, if you are working somewhere for 10 years. The reporters might still be getting trainings in different areas of journalism.
Or maybe I am overthinking it

I think the key point here is "valuable training they receive through their assignments". The word valuable implies that they learn something extra through the assignments.
Option A - In a way this strengthens the argument, since the salary difference is evened out at a senior level.
Option B - If most employees have been working for more than 10 years and still being paid on the lower side, this casts a doubt on whether they are learning something valuable even after 10 years
Options C, D and E - irrelevant

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.
(B) Most of the newspaper’s reporters had worked there for more than ten years.
(C) The circulation of the newspaper had recently reached a plateau, after it had increased steadily throughout the 1980s.
(D) The union that represented reporters at the newspaper was different from the union that represented reporters at the newspaper’s competitors.
(E) The newspaper was widely read throughout continental Europe and Great Britain as well as North America.

Hi Experts

GMATNinja @VeritasKarishma EducationAisle ChrisLele mikemcgarry AjiteshArun egmat sayantanc2k RonPurewal DmitryFarber MagooshExpert avigutman EMPOWERgmatVerbal MartyTargetTestPrep ExpertsGlobal5 IanStewart
other experts AnthonyRitz

I was looking for the some answers like " If the training is not useful for them then reporter's salary can't be compensated
I didn't got any option similar to my prethinking
but when I saw the answer I was amazed
How can ans be B?

There is always a room for learning . So They are so experienced but if they are still getting new assignments then they can still learn some new things from the training

Can someone please explain how the ans is B

So, prethinking was mostly a distraction and a waste of time, right?

(B) undermines the support for the claim 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."

Sure, the reporters could still be learning, as you said, "some things," after over ten years at the newspaper. However, for it to make sense for the reporters to be paid an average salary that was "much lower" than the average salary paid by its competitors to their reporters, the reporters would have to be getting a LOT of training.

Since it's unlikely that reporters would still get getting a lot of valuable training after ten years at the same paper, (B) makes that justification look pretty dubious.

Vatsal7794

At that point in their careers, you might also ask "Training for what?" It's like asking The Rolling Stones to do a free gig "for the exposure." I don't think they need the help after all these decades. New folks might be willing to take a pay cut to learn the trade, but why would experienced folks stick around for that?

And MartyTargetTestPrep, are you saying that people shouldn't "prethink" before hitting the CR answers? I mean, it can be done better or worse, but I'd argue that it's essential.