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

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.

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. =====================

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.

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

This is a great question since it is focused on a very minute detail.

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.

my dear friend from India

this is indeed a great question. I like how this question provokes an intense thought process.

No one has mentioned the following:
Mel talks about the effect ALREADY EXPERIENCED: "The legislature’s move HAS DONE NOTHING" (as if having some data behind such a claim)
And Pat talks about a theoretical situation: DOES improve situation (meaning WILL improve, basically, theorising)

To me, THIS is the main inadequacy in Pat's answer: it doesn't really access Mel's point (a fact) and explores a DIFFERENT SUBJECT: possible effects of judges' engagements.

Yes, it does have to do with extending the current situation to future possible effect (A)
but ALSO gives no evidence IN SUPPORT of the denial of (or, to be correct, simply omitting) Mel's point about effects already experienced. Exploring possibilities is obviously not an evidence against a statement on a given fact.

Ans since the question is not about a logical bug in Pat's response, but about how Pat's response is inadequate, I believe, that the truely correct option is simply not among the given ones...

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Situation: Best candidates not attracted to judges’ job
Mel: 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.

WE ARE LOOKING AT WHY PAT's RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE.
THAT IS WHICH PART OF MEL's ARGUMENT is NOT ADDRESSED IN PAT'S COUNTERARGUMENT, or any
inherent FLAWS IN PAT'S OWN COUNTERARGUMENT.

Mel points that the move's positive effects were outweighed by the potential effects of the coupled negative move – ban on receiving money for lectures and teaching engagements.

Pat states that the above negative move will apply to very few judges therefore it will have little final negative impact.

Choice C:
Two issues

1) Pat doesn’t say that Mel’s indicated negative move “receiving money for lectures” will be absent. He just says that it won’t apply to most and therefore there will be no final impact. But the initial negative move given by MEL is still there. Also negative effects seems plural whereas Pat addresses only one.

2) Pat’s response to Mel is NOT INADEQUATE BECAUSE of this reason as it DOES address the negative effect of the negative move pointed out by Mel. In fact IT ADEQUATELY addresses the negative effect and states WON’T apply to MOST judges.

I went through the explanation above, but still confused.
As Pat said "the raise in salary really does improve the situation"--->I think this is the positive effect he referred to
But he didn't give any evidence to show how the situation is improved, instead he just said "the ban has no negative effect"
So I don't know where Option C is wrong? Hope expert helps! Thx

Hi Reed - i have to push back. I think there are two ways to eliminate C

One way is focussing on a very very technical detail (As lawyers do) -- I believe you eliminated C ,focussing on the literal meaning of "absence of negative effects"

If i understand, "absence of negative effects" implies 0 current judges give lectures currently whereas the original argument, Pat did mention Few current judges give lectures currently

Given this technical / lawyerly like mismatch -- I believe you eliminated C

Please feel free to correct me if i am wrong.

Had option C variant been given, i believe you may have selected it ?

^^

I believe the stronger reason to eliminate Option C or option C1 is the following --



Both option C or option C 1 -- do not showcase how Pat's argument falls short exactly.

Instead Option C or Option C1 just tells us -- How did Pat respond to Mel

I pesonally thought Pat's response was a good one.

Option C 1 is saying -- there is a flaw in Pat's argument itself.
whereas
option A is saying -- lets say Pat's argument makes sense.... Even so, what is the problem with this sensical argument in relation to Mel's argument.

Thoughts ?

A slight rephrase to C1: "Attempts to argue that a certain change will have a positive effect merely by pointing out that there would be few negative effects."

I still would not have selected it, because the major flaw (which A addresses) is still there--any discussion about 'how often judges lecture/teach' pertains to only the *current* judges where we're trying to recruit new, better qualified ones.

I think C1 would be a *more* tolerable answer (absent A) because Pat's argument is basically 'the good thing will still happen because the effects of the bad thing are minimal.' But we still don't *really* know whether the good thing will happen. Even if the more qualified candidates ALSO wouldn't lecture/teach often, we're not sure this new bill would improve the situation.

Of course, if the more qualified candidates would like to lecture/teach often--as might be the case--the new bill has a pretty glaring flaw, which is why A is the best answer by far.

I don't think the GMAT would make you *choose* between A and C1, though. If they did, A is still the better answer. But it's pretty textbook GMAT trap-answer to give a right answer, and a very tempting wrong answer, and the reason the very tempting wrong answer is so tempting is that it can be easily misinterpreted to be a better 'version' of that answer (that still is a worse answer than the actual right answer).

A good way to get rid of that very tempting right answer C is to not misinterpret it into C1. But even if you do? A is still the better answer.

Here's the thing--neither C nor C1 is *actually* what Pat's argument is. C and C1 both are what Pat is *trying* to do. But he fails at doing so because of the flaws in A. What Pat is actually doing is 'Arguing for positive effects by pointing out the lack of negative effects [but doing so for a group of people that we're actually not interested in].'

If Pat had said "Qualified candidates for judges are not interested in teaching and lecturing for money," that would be 'arguing for positive effects by pointing out the lack of negative effects.'

(We might be mostly in agreement, and just dancing around some nuance here).

Thanks so ReedArnoldMPREP for responding - your re-phrase in the purple above of option C1 is much better than mine. Lets keep that.

Here is my attempt to understand why option A is still better than option C1


Option C1 if picked is saying -- well, Pat's forecast itself is potentially flawed. Maybe what Pat is forecasting is NOT going to happen [less bad, does not translate to more good]. I think thats what you are implying in the yellow highlight above

Option A is saying ---

Lets say Pat's forecast is true (almost as a premise - lets say we know the yellow highlight above is true) ... Even if what Pat forecasts will definitely happen – Do you still see any loopholes ?

I think thats the difference between rephrased C1 and option A.

I agree with you though
-- I think bashing Pat's forecast is definitely another way to showcase a weakeness

What a fascinating question...
I have to confess that the way Pat thinks is exactly the way I analyze some topics in the real world sometimes--it is much easier to focus on the impact on those who have been already known to be relevant to the field than to think about the impact on the potential people who might be involved in the matter as well. This question serves as a big warning to me and points out an area that I never pay attention to.

However, since it is my first CR question that exploits the difference in two groups of subjects, I hope to confirm some points. Experts avigutman IanStewart could you please share some of your thoughts when you have time?

1. Will Pat still have the flaw in reasoning if the topic changes?

Mei says that the salary raise would not help attract the best candidates to the judge job because there will be a ban too. And Pat says that the impact of the ban will have little or no negative impact since few judges teach or give lectures.

The two persons are actually talking about different groups of people. Although I am not familiar with the justice system, I know that sometimes lawyers or attorneys can become judges, and thus the "candidates" Mei refers to comprise many types of practitioners in the legal system but do not include the judges themselves. By comparison, Pat talks about the very judges themselves. Spotting this difference is the key to solving this question.

However, if this topic were changed as the following, would Pat still have a flaw?

Mei: The salary our law firm offers has been too low to attract the best lawyers. The CEO's move to raise the salary will not improve the situation, becaue it is coupled with a ban on receiving money for teaching engagements.

Pat's response 1: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since very few of our lawyers teach, the ban will have little or no negative effect.

Pat's response 2: No, the raise in salary really does improve the situation. Since in general very few lawyers teach, the ban will have little or no negative effect.

I think that the response 1 still has a flaw similar to that in the original response, does not it? Mei talks about the lawyers as a group, while Pat considers merely the law firm's current lawyers.

But, the response 2 does not have the flaw, does it? Now the two persons finally talk about the same group--the lawyers as a group.


2. When should we pay attention to the difference in groups?

I am sorry if this question is too broad, but I am a bit curious since it is my first CR question that "plays" around the difference in groups of subjects. I feel that although I do not need to remind myself to watch out for the difference in groups for every CR question, I might easily ignore the difference without due caution. But on the other hand, I also feel that if I intentionally think about "Is there a difference in the groups of subjects involved in this matter?," the questions might be more complex than necessary.

I do not have much time to search for the questions that can serve as the best examples to my point, but I think of two:

a. Springfield Fire Commissioner: The vast majority of false fire alarms are prank calls made anonymously from fire alarm boxes on street corners. Since virtually everyone has access to a private telephone, these alarm boxes have outlived their usefulness. Therefore, we propose to remove the boxes. Removing the boxes will reduce the number of prank calls without hampering people's ability to report a fire. (link: https://reurl.cc/g2llKp)

If I intentionally focus on the difference in groups of subjects, I think I can say that this commissioner's argument is totally based on the analyses on prank calls that occurred in the past. But no one knows about the prank calls that will occur in the future. So, one way to evaluate whether the plan would work might be to know whether the pranksters will use tools other than private phones.

But, actually I do not need to think about this issue in advance, since no option addresses this issue.

b. A manufacturer of workstations for computer-aided design seeks to increase sales to its most important corporate customers. Its strategy is to publish very low list prices for workstations in order to generate interest among the buyers for those corporations. (Link: https://reurl.cc/k1vQaL)

As in the above question, if I intentionally focus on the difference in groups of subjects, I think I can think of a few scenarios that will call this manufacturer's plan into question, such as "these corporations have changed their policy and now focus more on quality than on the price," or "the average list price of all workstations has fallen for a while given decreases in equipment costs."

But again, these scenarios that utilize the difference in groups of subjects (a difference mechanism from that expected by the manufacturer) do not appear in the correct options. So, even if I think about these scenarios in advance, that might not help me much in the test in terms of efficiency (although it is interesting to consider difference scenarios in practice.)

Overall, experts do you have some suggestions regarding when I should pay attention to the difference in groups of subjects in a CR question? When the stimulus mentions the different groups in an implicit way?

Thank you!

Appreciate your time and thoughts.
Thank you for helping me learn.

Hi GraceSCKao, I think this problem deals with a form of survivorship bias. In this case, "surviving" means working as a judge, and "not surviving" in this context means those "best candidates" whom the official salary was too low to attract.
When a CR problem deals with a course of action that is designed to accomplish some aim, it's very important to think deeply about the aim and be as specific as possible about what exactly that aim is. Attention to detail is critical here.
In this case, the aim is to attract the best candidates, so the implication is that those best candidates do not presently work as judges.

Correct. Response 1 suffers from survivorship bias, whereas response 2 does not.