GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 19 May 2019, 19:38

### 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

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

# Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 09 Oct 2017
Posts: 1
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2017, 07:50
Why not C? It clearly states the absence of a negative effect and uses this to evaluate an improvement. That's clearly a wrong assumption to make, therefore the correct answer should be C.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2474
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2017, 19:18
1
jtomas01 wrote:
Why not C? It clearly states the absence of a negative effect and uses this to evaluate an improvement. That's clearly a wrong assumption to make, therefore the correct answer should be C.

Both Mel and Pat would agree that raising the salary would be a good thing if there were no ban. The disagreement is over whether raising the salary would STILL be a good thing IF it is coupled with a ban.

Even Mel fails to address other possible negative effects of raising the salary and implementing the ban. Mel implies that raising the salary WOULD have a positive effect if it weren't for the ban. Pat does not need to argue that there are NO negative effects (i.e. an "absence of negative effects"). Instead, Pat just needs to address the SINGLE negative effect described by Mel.

If Pat had said, "No, raising the salary and implementing the ban will improve the situation because doing so has no negative effects", then choice (C) would be more accurate. Instead, Pat specifically addresses the potential negative effect described by Mel. How does Pat do this? Pat attempts to assess how the salary increase and ban will affect potential judges by providing evidence about the effect on current judges.

This is exactly what choice (A) says, so (A) is a better answer.
_________________
GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal
Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 217
Location: United States (ID)
GPA: 3.33
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2018, 00:26
jtomas01 wrote:
Why not C? It clearly states the absence of a negative effect and uses this to evaluate an improvement. That's clearly a wrong assumption to make, therefore the correct answer should be C.

C is not ok in the question. Surely, both you and I must agree that B,D,E are out of scope.
C is not ok b/c the argument never talks about positive effects or name any negative effects. Meanwhile, A still makes most sense b/c the second person tries to argue that the plan will work based on the current situation.

Give me kudos if you feel that my post is good enough.
Manager
Status: EAT SLEEP GMAT REPEAT!
Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Posts: 164
Location: India
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2018, 08:20
JCLEONES wrote:
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.

Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group.

How is A better than E?..Please explain

Thanks
_________________
Regards,
Manager
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 117
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Operations
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jun 2018, 09:11
JCLEONES wrote:
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job. The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation, because it was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.

Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members.
B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change
C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects
D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial
E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group.

How is A better than E?..Please explain

Thanks

E is too extreme. Pat clearly says that "very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect". That means he is not at all talking about all members.
A is the correct option. Its just the rephrase of what Pat is saying about current members.

==========Pls hit +1 KUDOS if you liked my reply. =====================
SC Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1746
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2018, 07:05
premise:
1. judges salary is low.
2. no lucrative salary, no good candidate.
3. salary been raised, but no good come out of it.
4. salary raise was combined with ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.

Counter premise:
1. Ban is affecting less of the judges, so Ban has little to no effects.

pre-thinking :

One way this is bad part and it must not be happen. Pat is saying that it is bad but affecting very few people, so lets not be worry about it.

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

A. attempts to assess how a certain change will affect potential members of a group by providing evidence about its effect on the current members. --- Think it this way, small or large but if this change can bring a lot of people close then it is meant to be a good change. This is what this choice is talking about.

B. mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change --- definitely No.

C. attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects --- Far fetched. I mean What absent nigetive effects?

D. simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial --- its not a simple denial and there is some support given.

E. assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group. --- here members of concern are very few. not most members.
_________________
Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2 | How to Improve GMAT Quant from Q49 to a Perfect Q51 | Time management

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases | Subjunctive Mood
Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Posts: 92
GMAT 1: 570 Q49 V19
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2018, 03:31
Pat's response is adequate when applied to the current pool of judges as so few of them make money from outside their judicial duties.
Mel is talking about prospective judges and says that even though their salaries have been raised but as they are not allowed to make money through lectures increasing their salaries will probably not address the core issue as prospective judges who want to make money through other means may be rather very high.
Hence A it is
Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2018
Posts: 24
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
Schools: Wharton '21, Haas '21
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2018, 06:28
This is a great question since it is focused on a very minute detail.
_________________
If you liked my post, kindly give me a Kudos. Thanks.
Intern
Joined: 28 Jul 2018
Posts: 11
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2019, 09:20
Whoa whoa. a lot of confusion is surrounding this question.

--

In critical reasoning you must read very carefully.

Mel says that the official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best candidates to the job. Clearly, she means that the current salary is too low to attract the best candidates for the job. She then cites a new legislation to further strengthen her argument.

An adequate response to Mel's argument would be that other effects encourage the best candidates to apply for this job (reputation, power, etc.) or that the new salary increase is more than enough to compete with the salary of prestigious law firms

Now Pal gives an inadequate response as he just says that the new salary is an improvement since the new legislation banned an income resource that was not extensively used. Now take a second and think about the new evidence. Did Pal prove Mel wrong? I do not think so. He just threw in some useless evidence.
Intern
Joined: 28 Jul 2018
Posts: 11
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2019, 09:22
This is a great question since it is focused on a very minute detail.

my dear friend from India

this is indeed a great question. I like how this question provokes an intense thought process.
Re: Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low   [#permalink] 28 Feb 2019, 09:22

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 30 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by