Because a large disparity in pay between the public and private sectors has developed in recent years, many experienc...

Bluebell7612 September 27, 2019

Conclusion of this passage

It really seems to me like the conclusion of this passage is: the functioning of public agencies will be improved And one of the supporting premises are: Government will be able to recapture these capable administrators by raising salaries to a level comparable to those of the private sector. It makes more sense to say Government will be able to recapture these capable administrators by raising salaries to a level comparable to those of the private sector BECAUSE the functioning of public agencies will be improved. Please help.

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Skylar September 28, 2019

@Bluebell7612 Maybe I can help.

Your initial understanding of the passage is correct. We can break it down as follows:

Premise: Many experienced and extremely capable government administrators have moved to private-sector management because of the large public-private pay disparity.
Premise: If government makes salaries comparable to private sector salaries, they will recapture these capable administrators.
Conclusion: The functioning of public agencies will be improved.

So, the argument is essentially claiming that public employees who switched to the private sector for increased pay will switch back to the public sector if pay is made comparable here, and that, by gaining back these public employees, the agencies will be improved. Therefore, it is the recapturing of these capable administrators that improves the functioning of public agencies.

Does this make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!