feifei-22

yaozhixinjie

22. In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North American paid its reporters an average salary paid by its principle competitors to their reporters. An executive of the newspaper argued that this practice was justified, since any shortfall that might exist in the reporters’ salaries is fully compensated by the valuable training they receive through their assignments.


Which one of the following, if true about the newspaper in 1992, most seriously undermines the justification offered by the executive?


A. Senior reporters at the newspaper earned as much as reporters of similar stature who worked for the newspaper’s principle competitors.

B. Most of the newspaper’s reporters had worked there for more than ten years.

C. The circulation of the newspaper had recently reached a plateau, after it had increased steadily throughout the 1980s.

D. The union that represented reporters at the newspaper was different from the union that represented reporters at the newspaper’s competitors.

E. The newspaper was widely read throughout continental Europe and Great Britain as well as North America.

求教为什么选B虽然我觉得其他的都有问题 可逻辑思路想不通为什么选B······~~？

lenghong

楼上应该是正解。

gongbing66

因为这个公司和其他竞争对手工资的差额能够被其有价值的职业训练所补偿（可以算作一种隐性收入），所以这种做法是可取的。

削弱的话就可以削弱原因，工资收入差额不能够被补偿——所谓的职业训练并无价值——要么训练本身很水，要么训练的对象根本不需要——答案B 这些记者都是有经验的人，根本不需啊。。就是这个思路了 有点绕
希望有所帮助吧

miweekend

#1 floor is right. This is an old LSAT question.

It seems that Feifei simply copied LSAT test questions.

yaozhixinjie

是说他们并没有从中获得神马valuable的东西 不然他们不会十年了还在做reporter？貌似我还是木有理解···唉 怎么这么不灵泛啊····

rmbaos

IMO: if B is true, then there would not be any "valuable trainings" to the reporters, as they are not actually short of any training after having had over 10 years' experience.