Sociologist: A contention of many of my colleagues—that the large

Question

Sociologist: A contention of many of my colleagues—that the large difference between the wages of the highest- and lowest-paid workers will inevitably become a source of social friction—is unfounded. Indeed, the high differential should have an opposite effect, for it means that companies will be able to hire freely in response to changing conditions. Social friction arises not from large wage differences, but from wage levels that are static or slow changing.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the sociologist’s argument?

(A) When companies can hire freely in response to changing conditions, wage levels do not tend to be static or slow changing.
(B) People who expect their wages to rise react differently than do others to obvious disparities in income.
(C) A lack of financial caution causes companies to expand their operations.
(D) A company’s ability to respond swiftly to changing conditions always benefits its workers.
(E) Even relatively well-paid workers may become dissatisfied with their jobs if their wages never change.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

This is a very difficult question because the argument has gigantic holes in it. The holes are so big that the argument seems to make no sense at all. I had to take my time with this one, and really try my hardest to connect the dots. This is a 9 out of 10 difficulty question.

The ultimate conclusion of the sociologist’s argument is that his colleagues who believe a large wage differential will inevitably cause social friction are wrong. The biggest hole in the argument is between the second and third sentence, so that’s probably where the necessary assumption is. In the second sentence, the sociologist offers, as a premise, that a large wage differential will enable companies to hire freely in response to changing conditions. I have no idea why this would be true, but if it’s a premise then I can’t argue with it. In the third sentence, the sociologist offers a premise that social friction arises from wage levels that are static or slow changing. What the hell does one thing have to do with the other? The sociologist seems to have assumed that if companies can hire freely in response to changing conditions, then wage levels will not be static or slow changing. The argument as a whole still makes no sense to me whatsoever, but if this statement is not true then the argument makes exactly zero sense. So that’s my prediction: “if companies can hire freely in response to changing conditions, then wage levels will not be static or slow changing.”

A) Told you so. This is exactly like our prediction, so I’m 99 percent sure we’re right. If answer A is not true, the sociologist’s argument cannot possibly make sense. That’s the definition of something being “necessary” or “required.”

B) There’s nothing about expectations in the argument, so this can’t be necessary.

C) There’s nothing about financial caution in the argument either.

D) The argument is not about benefiting workers.

E) The argument is not about worker satisfaction.

B through E are all irrelevant. Our answer is A because it links together the elements of the sociologist’s nonsensical argument.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE

This stimulus starts as many LSAT questions do—with a prevailing view to be disputed. In this case, the prevailing view is that the difference in wages between highest and lowest will eventually become a source of social conflict. The sociologist disputes this claim, concluding that the difference will have an opposite effect, because companies will be able to hire freely. He claims that social friction does not arise from high wage differences, but rather from static or slowly changing wages.

Premise: Social friction arises from static or slow changing wages.

Conclusion: The ability to hire freely will reduce social friction. In order for this conclusion to be properly drawn, the author must believe that the ability to hire freely must somehow make static or slow changing wages less likely.

The question stem asks for the assumption required by the sociologist’s argument; this is a Supporter Assumption question, and the correct answer choice should provide some link between the ability to hire freely and the absence of static or slow changing wages—for the author’s conclusion to hold, it must be the case that the ability to hire freely must allow companies to avoid static or slow changing wages.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice, as it provides the link between the rogue elements referenced above: When companies can hire freely, wage levels tend not to be static or slow changing:

Premise: Social friction arises from static or slow changing wages.

Assumption: There tend not to be slow or static changes to wages when companies are able to hire freely.

Conclusion: The ability to hire freely will reduce social friction.

Once we make this Supporter Assumption explicit, we can see that the argument flows logically.

Answer choice (B): The conclusion in the stimulus does not concern  reactions  to wage change expectations, but rather the relationship between static or slowly changing wages, social friction, and companies’ ability to hire freely. Since the sociologist’s conclusion makes no distinction regarding how people react to disparities in income, and this choice makes no reference to the unlinked elements of the author’s argument, this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): Expansion of business operations is completely irrelevant to the sociologist’s conclusion, and this answer does not tie together the prephrased elements listed above, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): It may be the case that a company’s ability to respond swiftly to change always benefits workers, but since this choice does not provide the necessary link between the rogue elements referenced above, this is not the Supporter Assumption we are seeking.

Answer choice (E): If well-paid workers become dissatisfied if their wages never change, this may help to support or explain the author’s assertion that static wages lead to social friction, but this answer choice does not link the premise about static wages causing social friction with the conclusion that when companies can hire freely, social friction is reduced.

VeritasPrepBrian · Answer

This one is a great example of Assumption strategy - the role of a correct Assumption answer is typically to fill a gap in logic in the argument. Here there's a pretty huge gap. We have the structure:

CONCLUSION: The large wage difference will not cause social friction
PREMISE 1: The large differential will allow companies to hire freely
PREMISE 2: Social friction arises from wage levels that are static or slowly-changing

Note - premise 1 and premise 2 con't connect with each other at all! And each only touches on half the conclusion: premise 1 talks about the differential, and premise 2 talks about social friction. In order to draw that conclusion we need to connect that gap, and only choice (A) does that. It says that hiring freely (premise 1) leads to wages that are not static or slowly-changing. And that connects to premise 2, which tells us that avoiding static/slowly-changing wages eliminates the common environment for social friction. Therefore we can connect the dots to the conclusion.

Mck2023 · Answer

Hi  VeritasPrepBrian 
Can you please provide the detailed explanation on how the other answer choies are wrong?

Posted from my mobile device

honey1 · Answer

Sociologist: A contention of many of my colleagues???that the large difference between the wages of the highest- and lowest-paid workers will inevitably become a source of social friction???is unfounded. Indeed, the high differential should have an opposite effect, for it means that companies will be able to hire freely in response to changing conditions. Social friction arises not from large wage differences, but from wage levels that are static or slow changing.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the sociologist???s argument?

(A) When companies can hire freely in response to changing conditions, wage levels do not tend to be static or slow changing.
(B) People who expect their wages to rise react differently than do others to obvious disparities in income.
(C) A lack of financial caution causes companies to expand their operations.
(D) A company???s ability to respond swiftly to changing conditions always benefits its workers.
(E) Even relatively well-paid workers may become dissatisfied with their jobs if their wages never change.
hey can you plz explain why option E is not the answer 
THANK YOU

svasan05 · Answer

Hi  honey1

Option (E) states: Even relatively well-paid workers may become dissatisfied with their jobs if their wages never change.

Let us negate this option: Relatively well-paid workers will not become dissatisfied with their jobs if their wages never change.

If this is true, the conclusion of the stimulus (that large wage differential between high and low paid workers will not cause social friction) is not affected in any way. We are having to assume that job satisfaction will help in preventing social friction. Even with this assumption, option (E) does not address wage differential at all. Therefore the overall conclusion cannot be negated by this and option (E) cannot be the correct assumption.

Hope this helps.

unraveled · Answer

Sociologist: A contention of many of my colleagues—that the large difference between the wages of the highest- and lowest-paid workers will inevitably become a source of social friction—is unfounded. Indeed, the high differential should have an opposite effect,  for it means that companies will be able to hire freely in response to changing conditions .  Social friction arises  not from large wage differences, but  from wage levels that are static or slow changing .

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the sociologist’s argument?

Blue text is the reason behind the highlighted text. The option that relates the two/fills the gap is the right answer.

(A) When companies can hire freely in response to changing conditions, wage levels do not tend to be static or slow changing.
(B) People who expect their wages to rise react differently than do others to obvious disparities in income.
(C) A lack of financial caution causes companies to expand their operations.
(D) A company’s ability to respond swiftly to changing conditions always benefits its workers.
(E) Even relatively well-paid workers may become dissatisfied with their jobs if their wages  never  change.

Only A and E make it in the end. E loses for the reason that it talks only about well-paid workers and uses rigid word(never) to emphasize.

Answer A.

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Sociologist: A contention of many of my colleagues—that the large

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Sociologist: A contention of many of my colleagues—that the large

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards