LSAT Question Explanation
PT 108, Section 3, Question 22
PrinciplesExplanation
Jim notes that employees with shorter tenure than himself shouldn't get paid more than he does. Tasha adds that employees that have the same tenure as Jim shouldn't get paid less than he does.
So my prediction for the principle underlying their arguments is that no one should make more than another employee unless they are longer tenured than that other employee. You need to be longer tenured to make more.
There's a necessary condition for making more money, so the diagram would look like this: Make more money → Longer time at the company
Or the contrapositive: Longer time at the company → Make more money
Answer choices
This misses the mark completely, the reasoning about what makes a fair salary is related to tenure, not duties.
Jim and Tasha are talking specifically about length of time spent at their company, not in the field overall.
This is close, but the arguments were about how people should not make more than others if they've worked at the company for the same amount of time or less.
This statement is a sufficient/necessary confusion compared to the principle in the stimulus. Here's the diagram for this answer choice: Longer time at the company → Make more money
Note how that reverses the sufficient and necessary conditions from the stimulus. This is a common trap answer setup.
This matches our prediction. An employee needs to be longer tenured than another to make more money than the other person.
This is irrelevant. The time relevant to determining salary in the stimulus is number of years at the company, not time spent working per day.