Last visit was: 09 May 2026, 17:21

It is currently 09 May 2026, 17:21

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Back to Forum

Create Topic

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

1 2 3

jabhatta2

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Last visit: 21 Apr 2023

Posts: 1,251

Own Kudos:

328

Given Kudos: 188

Posts: 1,251

Kudos: 328

10 Jun 2022, 18:26

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hi avigutman GraceSCKao
- would you agree this is the reason why (C) is wrong

(C) just describes how Pat is responding. (C) just describes Pat's strategy.

(C) doesn't tell explain what the flaw is specifically in the way Pat responds

GraceSCKao

Joined: 02 Jul 2021

Last visit: 18 Dec 2022

Posts: 117

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 1,244

Location: Taiwan

Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39 Verified score

Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39 Verified score

Posts: 117

Kudos: 54

12 Jun 2022, 02:42

Kudos

Bookmarks

jabhatta2

Hi,

I also seek avigutman's help so often, and before he replies, I could share some of my thoughts.

JCLEONES

The option (C) is tempting.

Some experts and members said previously in their posts that they do not think Pat points to the absence of negative effects, since Pat, by saying "very few judges teach or give lecture," admits that there will be some effects, while "the absence of negative effects" means that there will be no negative at all.

But in my opinion, since Pat concludes with "the ban will have little or no negative effect," it should not be very wrong to say that Pat points to the absence of negative effects. In other words, (C) does a fine job in describing the way Pat replies.

If there were no option (A), (C) might be okay in my opinion. But (A) exists. It is not easy to read (A), but once we understand what the option says, we agree that failing to spot the difference in the two groups of subjects is much more severe than the flaw described in (C).

jabhatta2

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Last visit: 21 Apr 2023

Posts: 1,251

Own Kudos:

328

Given Kudos: 188

Posts: 1,251

Kudos: 328

12 Jun 2022, 06:28

Kudos

Bookmarks

hmmm thanks GraceSCKao avigutman - On My 2nd attempt -

I actually think (C) is wrong for another reason entirely.

Background -

Legislatures plan - Salary increase + banning side lectures
Mel's prediction on plan - plan wont work
Pat's prediction on plan -- above plan WILL work

Reason -

Pat has argued essentially that the above plan WILL WORK because banning side lectures impacts, only 1 % (For example) of the judges - a very small percentage of the overall community of judges. So from an average perspective, given the proposed plan will negatively impact only 1 % of the judging community, the plan is on average going to help the overall judge community (99 % of the community will benefit)

But, just How bad will it get for the 1 % of the judging community specifically ?

Little bad ? Very bad ? Maybe very very bad

Perhaps the 1 % of the judging community is going to lose millions of dollars (because of the banning of side lectures)

We don't know what Pat believes is going to happen to the 1 % of the judging community.

So option (C) is technically **wrong** because we don't know what Pat believes will happen to the 1 % of the judging community

Perhaps Pat believes for the 1 % of the judges -- there are going to be LOTS OF NEGATIVE EFFECTS

avigutman

Tutor

Joined: 17 Jul 2019

Last visit: 30 Sep 2025

Posts: 1,285

Own Kudos:

929

Given Kudos: 66

Location: Canada

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45 Verified score

GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47 Verified score

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Posts: 1,285

Kudos: 929

12 Jun 2022, 17:17

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

jabhatta2

Legislatures plan - Salary increase + banning side lectures
Mel's prediction on plan - plan wont work
Pat's prediction on plan -- above plan WILL work

Reason -

Pat has argued essentially that the above plan WILL WORK because banning side lectures impacts, only 1 % (For example) of the judges - a very small percentage of the overall community of judges. So from an average perspective, given the proposed plan will negatively impact only 1 % of the judging community, the plan is on average going to help the overall judge community (99 % of the community will benefit)

But, just How bad will it get for the 1 % of the judging community specifically ?

Little bad ? Very bad ? Maybe very very bad

Perhaps the 1 % of the judging community is going to lose millions of dollars (because of the banning of side lectures)

We don't know what Pat believes is going to happen to the 1 % of the judging community.

So option (C) is technically **wrong** because we don't know what Pat believes will happen to the 1 % of the judging community

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):

Quote:

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

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:

Quote:

No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation.

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

GraceSCKao

Joined: 02 Jul 2021

Last visit: 18 Dec 2022

Posts: 117

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 1,244

Location: Taiwan

Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39 Verified score

Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39 Verified score

Posts: 117

Kudos: 54

13 Jun 2022, 03:03

Kudos

Bookmarks

jabhatta2

I actually think (C) is wrong for another reason entirely.

Pat has argued essentially that the above plan WILL WORK because banning side lectures impacts, only 1 % (For example) of the judges - a very small percentage of the overall community of judges. So from an average perspective, given the proposed plan will negatively impact only 1 % of the judging community, the plan is on average going to help the overall judge community (99 % of the community will benefit)

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.

jabhatta2

But, just How bad will it get for the 1 % of the judging community specifically ?
Little bad ? Very bad ? Maybe very very bad
Perhaps the 1 % of the judging community is going to lose millions of dollars (because of the banning of side lectures)
We don't know what Pat believes is going to happen to the 1 % of the judging community.

So option (C) is technically **wrong** because we don't know what Pat believes will happen to the 1 % of the judging community

Perhaps Pat believes for the 1 % of the judges -- there are going to be LOTS OF NEGATIVE EFFECTS

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.

*

avigutman

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

Quote:

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

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:
No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation.

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

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!

avigutman

Tutor

Joined: 17 Jul 2019

Last visit: 30 Sep 2025

Posts: 1,285

Own Kudos:

929

[1]

Given Kudos: 66

Location: Canada

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45 Verified score

GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47 Verified score

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Posts: 1,285

Kudos: 929

[1]

13 Jun 2022, 09:16

Kudos

Bookmarks

GraceSCKao

I interpret the words "a certain change" as the whole program (salary increase and ban at the same time).

Me too.

GraceSCKao

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.

Agreed.

GraceSCKao

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.

I disagree, GraceSCKao. I suspect that you're not making as big a deal as I am of the word "merely."

GraceSCKao

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.

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.

GraceSCKao

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

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.

GraceSCKao

Joined: 02 Jul 2021

Last visit: 18 Dec 2022

Posts: 117

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 1,244

Location: Taiwan

Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39 Verified score

Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24

GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39 Verified score

Posts: 117

Kudos: 54

14 Jun 2022, 02:43

Kudos

Bookmarks

avigutman

It's enough that Pat acknowledges a positive effect to make answer choice (C) unfair toward Pat.

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!

avigutman

Tutor

Joined: 17 Jul 2019

Last visit: 30 Sep 2025

Posts: 1,285

Own Kudos:

929

[1]

Given Kudos: 66

Location: Canada

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45 Verified score

GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47 Verified score

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Posts: 1,285

Kudos: 929

[1]

15 Jun 2022, 07:43

Kudos

Bookmarks

GraceSCKao

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.

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.

Raman109

Joined: 17 Aug 2009

Last visit: 28 Jul 2025

Posts: 704

Own Kudos:

214

Given Kudos: 33

Posts: 704

Kudos: 214

30 Nov 2023, 09:24

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.

RutujaDeshmukh19

Joined: 08 Jul 2023

Last visit: 15 May 2025

Posts: 20

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 23

Location: India

Schools: ESADE ESSEC HEC Sep'24 Intake IESE '26 ISB '25 NUS '26

Posts: 20

Kudos: 13

11 Mar 2024, 08:27

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.

Contropositive

Joined: 21 Oct 2023

Last visit: 17 Feb 2025

Posts: 53

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 21

Location: India

GMAT Focus 1: 635 Q86 V81 DI77 Verified score

Posts: 53

Kudos: 19

20 May 2024, 04:26

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hi ReedArnoldMPREP avigutman I found Pat's argument a crappy one, and i chose (D), but later i found that none of the posters found (D) objectionable. Now, i wonder whether i am the only one who read (D) in a very crappy way.
Please help with my understanding of (D):

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so this ''PAT'' guy directly denies the MEL's conclusion. So, i was expecting some evidence from Pat to back his denial.
But Pat seems to give a very disjointed argument, weakening the Mel's evidence about ban's effect.

So my objection was: Just because PAT weakens the MEL's evidence doesn't mean PAT can outrightly deny Mel's conclusion. He has to support his denial with some evidence..

Now, i am not sure where did i go wrong. Would appreciate the help.

avigutman

Tutor

Joined: 17 Jul 2019

Last visit: 30 Sep 2025

Posts: 1,285

Own Kudos:

929

Given Kudos: 66

Location: Canada

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45 Verified score

GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47 Verified score

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Posts: 1,285

Kudos: 929

03 Jun 2024, 17:04

Kudos

Bookmarks

Contropositive

Pat does support his denial with some evidence, @Contropositive:

Quote:

very few judges teach or give lectures

ReedArnoldMPREP

Manhattan Prep Instructor

Joined: 30 Apr 2021

Last visit: 03 Dec 2025

Posts: 521

Own Kudos:

548

Given Kudos: 37

GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47 Verified score

Posts: 521

Kudos: 548

04 Jun 2024, 07:29

Kudos

Bookmarks

I would say Avi has hit it square on the head! Pat does provide evidence to support his claim, and D says that Pat did not provide evidence.

Now the evidence is *flawed* (per all the discussion about this problem), but it is still provided.

avigutman

Contropositive

Pat does support his denial with some evidence, @Contropositive:

Quote:

very few judges teach or give lectures

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 09 May 2026

Posts: 16,456

Own Kudos:

79,563

[1]

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,456

Kudos: 79,563

[1]

Updated on: 28 Jan 2026, 00:14

Originally posted by KarishmaB on 28 Jul 2024, 03:35.
Last edited by KarishmaB on 28 Jan 2026, 00:14, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos

Bookmarks

JCLEONES

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

Here is the video solution to this problem: https://youtu.be/0DsRnDAb8uQ

Mel’s argument:

The official salary for judges has always been too low to attract the best candidates to the job.
The move to raise the salary was coupled with a ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.

Conclusion: The legislature’s move to raise the salary has done nothing to improve the situation

Pat’s argument:

Since very few judges teach or give lectures, the ban will have little or no negative effect.

Conclusion: The raise in salary really does improve the situation

Why is Pat’s response inadequate? The point is whether the best candidates will be attracted to the job or not in future. With the legislature’s move, if the potential salary has stayed the same, it is unlikely that best candidates will be attracted. Whether the current judges take advantage of teaching jobs or not is irrelevant. The people considering becoming a judge would see the same potential income as before.

Let’s look at the options now.

(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. This is the flaw of the argument. Its effects on the current members does not define how it will affect potential members. If the salaries of current members will rise because they don’t teach, it doesn’t mean that potential members will view it as a raise in the salaries. When potential members evaluate the career, they could have accounted for the teaching money too and found it lacking. With the ban, even with raised salaries, the potential money would be the same. Hence the situation has not improved. The point is whether the best candidates will be attracted to the job, not whether the new policy helps improve the sitiuation of the current judges.

(B) Mistakenly takes the cause of a certain change to be an effect of that change

There is no cause effect flaw.

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

As per Pat, the raise is salaries will not improve the situation. So he does not argue that a certain change will have a positive effect.

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

Not correct. Pat does tell us that very few judges teach or give lectures. This is evidence put forward by him.

(E) Assumes that changes that benefit the most able members of a group necessarily benefit all members of that group

No discussion on able members vs all members.

Answer (A)

Discussion on Flaw in Reasoning: https://youtu.be/3s0tWn3tiT8

VerbalBot

Non-Human User

Joined: 01 Oct 2013

Last visit: 04 Jan 2021

Posts: 19,427

Own Kudos:

1,011

Posts: 19,427

Kudos: 1,011

05 Aug 2025, 01:26

Kudos

Bookmarks

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.