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

jabhatta2 and GraceSCKao thank you for inviting me to share my thoughts on answer choice (C).

I like that you started by summarizing the plan, followed by each person's prediction on whether the plan will work. However, I think you should have included the plan's aim. Generally speaking, in CR arguments about plans, we should be as focused as possible on the specific aim that the plan is meant to achieve. In this case, the plan's aim is to attract the best candidates to the job of judges. A strong focus on that makes the correct answer jump out, in my opinion.
Now, the degree to which 1% of the judging community is hurt doesn't seem relevant, does it? We're talking about attracting candidates who, by definition, do NOT currently work as judges.

Here's why I eliminate answer choice (C):

What does the word "merely" mean?
Merely: Only, and nothing more.
Is it true that Pat only pointed to the absence of negative effects? Let's remind ourselves of Pat's first sentence:

Wouldn't you agree that the raise in salary is a positive effect?

Hi,

You are doing an interesting breakdown--I also like to do breakdown for some CR questions, especially those involving statistics. But for the CR questions that do not give us enough information, doing breakdown barely helps sometimes.

In your scenario, even if we know only 1 percent of judge will be impacted by the ban, we can hardly evaluate the overall impact of the new salary program (salary increase + ban), because we have no idea how great the salary increase will be and how much loss the ban will lead to. So, as we are dealing with a Quant DS question whose correct answer is (E), it is hard to tell whether the average salary level will improve.

Moreover, as avigutman says in his post, our task is not to evaluate the impact of the new program on current judges, but to evaluate whether the program will succeed in attracting the best candidates. So we need to know how the candidates will react to the ban. Pat's ignorance of these candidates is a severe reasoning error.



You seem to have narrowed down your scope to the 1 percent of judges when you check the option (C), but the program will apply to all judges, and Pat also takes into account the whole group of judges in his response.

According to Pat's very own words, he thinks that there will be little or no negative effects, and he means that for the whole group of judges. His conclusion is based on his own evaluation, and our task is to point out the mistakes in his argument and evaluation.

*


Hi avigutman

I thought about this issue too, but the main reason I do not find (C) bad is that I interpret the words "a certain change" as the whole program (salary increase and ban at the same time). Pat says one part of the program will bring about positive results, and another part of the program will have little or no negative effects. So, (C) seems to do a fine job in describing the way Pat replies--it seems fair to say that Pat attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects.

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.

If Pat said more about the salary increase, such as "the wage will be raised high enough to surpass the wages earned by most candidates," I would think that Pat does more than pointing to the absence of negative effects.

If you think the option (C) is very wrong itself, could you elaborate more when you have time?

Thanks!

Me too. Agreed.I disagree, GraceSCKao. I suspect that you're not making as big a deal as I am of the word "merely."
Pat doesn't have to go that far. It's enough that Pat acknowledges a positive effect to make answer choice (C) unfair toward Pat. There's no need for the positive effect to outweigh the negative effect.

Sure, here's an argument in which the criticism in answer choice (C) would be a fair criticism:
Mel: Attempting to use this microwave to heat up my cold lunch won't improve the situation, since we have a power outage.
Pat: No, using this microwave really will improve the situation, since even a powerless microwave won't make your lunch any colder.

Thank you avigutman so much for your explanation and interesting example!
I could see the point better now.

My original thought was:

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.

Option (C): Pat attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects

I thought that Pat by saying the first sentence colored in blue is "arguing that a certain change will have a positive effect", and by saying the second sentence colored in green is "pointing to the absence of negative effects." Hence, I thought that (C) matches Pat's response well.

I did not give some serious thought to the word "merely"--I was unsure whether the use of "merely" is wrong, since I was neither sure whether Pat, by saying the first sentence, is "acknowledging a positive effect" or "arguing the change will have a positive result." To be honest, even now I cannot articulate the difference between the two attempts.

I like your example because it clearly matches well the reasoning error mentioned by (C).

Mel: Attempting to use this microwave to heat up my cold lunch won't improve the situation, since we have a power outage.
Pat: No, using this microwave really will improve the situation, since even a powerless microwave won't make your lunch any colder.

I wonder whether the way how the cause-effect connector "since" is used explains why your example has the reasoing error mentioned by (C) but the original response does not. In your example, Pat does not claim alone that using the microwave will improve the situation, but say it as a conclusion based on the premise "since even a powerless...." By comparison, in the original question, Pat claims independently that the raise in salary really does improve the situation, and mentions the absence of negative impacts. So he does two things at the same time--acknowledging the positive effect and pointing out the absence of negative effect.

Is my understanding correct? If it is, could I say that the following example would also have the reasoning error mentioned by (C)?

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: The ban will have little or no negative effect since very few judges teach or give lectures. As a result, the move should achieve its goal.

Thank you so much!

No, GraceSCKao, this doesn't really make any difference - I would still eliminate it for the same reason.
Here's how I'm thinking about it: we have a raise coupled with a ban. It seems that everyone is in agreement that if it were just the raise (without a ban) the situation would be improved. The argument is about whether the ban itself will counteract the positive impact of the raise. Pat is arguing that the ban will have little or no negative effect, but Pat is NOT arguing that the ban, in and of itself, will have a positive effect.
In other words, there are two separate changes being proposed here, and Pat is arguing that little or no negative effects in one of the changes means that the other change won't be counteracted.
Remember, the question asked us for a reason why Pat's response is inadequate. If it's true that the ban will have little or no negative effects, then it follows that the ban won't counter the positive effects of the raise, and therefore Pat's response IS adequate, from that perspective.

Understanding the argument -
Mel: The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best Candidates to the job. Fact. When "Mel" says to attract the best candidates, "Mel" talks about the future candidates.
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. - Conclusion + supporting premise.

Pat: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. - Pat's conclusion (denial of Mal's conclusion)
Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect. - supporting premise.

Pat’s response to Mel is inadequate in that it

Option Elimination - We need to find what is the flaw in Pat's argument.

(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 - ok. This is a classic representation flaw. Mal talks about the current and the future Judges, and Pat focuses on the current and misses the future aspect.

(B) mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change - no cause of change "salary change" mentioned here. Out of scope.

(C) attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects - First, "Pat" didn't say "absence." He said "little." Or the impact will be minimal as the number of judges getting into teaching or lecturing is too small. Moreover, he is not merely saying, "There are no negative effects." He clarifies why the effect is minimal because very few judges currently teach or lecture.

To sum up, Pat's argument acknowledges the ban but contends that its negative effect would be minimal because very few judges engage in lecturing or teaching for money. Therefore, Pat's argument doesn't rely solely on the absence of negative effects; instead, it emphasizes the limited impact of the ban based on the infrequency of judges participating in the restricted activities.

(D) simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial - No, he provides a premise. Opposite to what is provided in the argument.

(E) assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group - Pat's argument reasons that as there are a few judges doing lectures or teaching, the salary change will have a minimal negative impact and a net positive impact. He doesn't assume "that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group."

To sum up, the emphasis is more on the negligible negative effects of the ban because very few judges partake in these activities, rather than on an assumption that benefits to the most capable judges will universally benefit all judges. Therefore, option (E) doesn't accurately represent the flaw in Pat's argument.

Let us break down the argument and understand it thoroughly:­

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.

• Official salary for job of judges has always been low to attract the best candidates for the job of judges.
• The legislature tried to solve this problem by raising the salary. 
• Nothing happened because this happened at the same time as the 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.

• He says that the salary does improve the situation because very few judges give lectures and promise teaching engagements.
• Thus the ban will have little or no negative effect.

(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. - Correct

• The effect on potential members of a group is very minuscule, thus causing no effect on the overall group. 
• This is not the method of reasoning used in the above conversation.

(B) mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change. - Incorrect

• Change - Increasing salary for the job of judges
• Cause of change - Best candidates were not attracted to the job due to low salary
• Effect of change - Will improve the situation because few judges teach or give lectures.

(C) attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing to the absence of negative effects. - Incorrect

• Change - Raise in salary
• Negative effects - Ban on teaching and giving lectures.
• It does not talk about the absence of the negative effects, that is it does not talk about the benefits caused. 
• He just says that the ban will have a little or no negative effect.

(D) simply denies Mel’s claim without putting forward any evidence in support of that denial - Incorrect

• He does give evidence that there are a few judges who teach and give lectures.

(E) assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group - Incorrect

• The changes will have no or little effect but he never says that the changes would benefit other members of the group.

­