Last visit was: 23 Jun 2025, 06:20 It is currently 23 Jun 2025, 06:20
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
reply2spg
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Last visit: 05 Oct 2010
Posts: 271
Own Kudos:
4,315
 [17]
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 271
Kudos: 4,315
 [17]
Kudos
Add Kudos
16
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
nevergiveup
Joined: 06 Mar 2006
Last visit: 29 Dec 2010
Posts: 312
Own Kudos:
1,603
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 312
Kudos: 1,603
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
priyankurml
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Last visit: 30 Jun 2012
Posts: 342
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 6
 V25
Posts: 342
Kudos: 2,534
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
unplugged
Joined: 26 May 2008
Last visit: 03 Apr 2011
Posts: 309
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 4
Concentration: Strategy, International Business, Finance
Schools:Kellogg Class of 2012
 Q48  V36
Posts: 309
Kudos: 153
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
chicagocubsrule
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Last visit: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 163
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 163
Kudos: 541
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
reply2spg
In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North American paid its reporters an 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.

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.
User avatar
tusharvk
Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Last visit: 24 May 2011
Posts: 119
Own Kudos:
20
 [1]
Concentration: finance & strategy
Posts: 119
Kudos: 20
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
reply2spg
In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North American paid its reporters an 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.
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.
User avatar
icandy
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Last visit: 15 Apr 2011
Posts: 621
Own Kudos:
2,111
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
 Q49  V41
Posts: 621
Kudos: 2,111
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tusharvk
reply2spg
In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North American paid its reporters an 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.
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.
User avatar
bigfernhead
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Last visit: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 518
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5
GMAT 2: 670
Posts: 518
Kudos: 2,024
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
ritula
Joined: 18 May 2008
Last visit: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 695
Own Kudos:
Posts: 695
Kudos: 3,072
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
replyspg, y r u not posting OA for all ur posts?
User avatar
reply2spg
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Last visit: 05 Oct 2010
Posts: 271
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 271
Kudos: 4,315
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
All - I am so sorry that I do not have OA for these questions. Please forgive me
avatar
jon133
Joined: 29 Jun 2013
Last visit: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
27
 [2]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 3
Kudos: 27
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
nightblade354
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 21 Jun 2025
Posts: 1,781
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 3,290
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,781
Kudos: 6,555
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
OA added and bumping for further discussion
User avatar
nurba92
Joined: 17 Jan 2016
Last visit: 06 Oct 2022
Posts: 67
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 144
Status:As cheeks from my insta feed say: soon...
Products:
Posts: 67
Kudos: 20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
nightblade354
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Last visit: 21 Jun 2025
Posts: 1,781
Own Kudos:
6,555
 [1]
Given Kudos: 3,290
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,781
Kudos: 6,555
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
auradediligodo
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Last visit: 18 Nov 2021
Posts: 364
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 67
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
GPA: 3.9
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?


Weaken question

Pre-thinking

Our task here is to find a scenario in which the salary was not compensated.

For example: What if throughout that year no training was done? (weakener) Clearly this scenario would undermine the conclusion.

POE:

(A) Senior reporters at the newspaper earned as much as reporters of similar stature who worked for the newspaper’s principle competitors.
irrelevant

(B) Most of the newspaper’s reporters had worked there for more than ten years.
If most of reporters are already experienced, chances that they needed training are small. Also in line with the pre-thinking logic

(C) The circulation of the newspaper had recently reached a plateau, after it had increased steadily throughout the 1980s.
[b]irrelevant[/b]

(D) The union that represented reporters at the newspaper was different from the union that represented reporters at the newspaper’s competitors.
irrelevant

(E) The newspaper was widely read throughout continental Europe and Great Britain as well as North America.
irrelevant
User avatar
arya251294
Joined: 03 Jan 2019
Last visit: 16 Mar 2024
Posts: 191
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 368
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Posts: 191
Kudos: 54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
auradediligodo
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?


Weaken question

Pre-thinking

Our task here is to find a scenario in which the salary was not compensated.

For example: What if throughout that year no training was done? (weakener) Clearly this scenario would undermine the conclusion.

POE:

(A) Senior reporters at the newspaper earned as much as reporters of similar stature who worked for the newspaper’s principle competitors.
irrelevant

(B) Most of the newspaper’s reporters had worked there for more than ten years.
If most of reporters are already experienced, chances that they needed training are small. Also in line with the pre-thinking logic

(C) The circulation of the newspaper had recently reached a plateau, after it had increased steadily throughout the 1980s.
[b]irrelevant[/b]

(D) The union that represented reporters at the newspaper was different from the union that represented reporters at the newspaper’s competitors.
irrelevant

(E) The newspaper was widely read throughout continental Europe and Great Britain as well as North America.
irrelevant

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 :dontknow:
User avatar
Tiffsootmoot8
Joined: 23 Aug 2015
Last visit: 21 May 2025
Posts: 53
Own Kudos:
29
 [2]
Given Kudos: 85
Location: India
Posts: 53
Kudos: 29
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
Vatsal7794
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 17 Mar 2021
Last visit: 07 Jun 2025
Posts: 250
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 123
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q44 V36
GPA: 3.5
GMAT 1: 660 Q44 V36
Posts: 250
Kudos: 126
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,476
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,431
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,476
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Vatsal7794
Hi Experts

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

Quote:
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
(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.
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 23 June 2025
Posts: 2,935
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 57
GMAT 2: 780  Q50  V50
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 2,935
Kudos: 8,349
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7332 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts