Here we have a strengthen with necessary premise question. Remember that a premise is necessary for a conclusion if the falsity of the premise guarantees or brings about the falsity of the conclusion. First we check to see if the answer choice strengthens the passage, and then, if it does strengthen, we negate the answer choice to see if its negation makes the argument fall apart. If the answer choice does both those things then it is our correct answer.
Conclusion: Government will be able to recapture these capable administrators by raising salaries to a level comparable to those of the private sector.
Why? We know that a large disparity in pay between the public and private sectors has developed in recent years, which has caused many experienced and extremely capable government administrators to quit their posts and take positions in private-sector management.
Answer choice (D) states: "People who moved from jobs in government administration to private-sector management would choose to change careers again."
Does this strengthen the argument? Yes. Answer choice (D) eliminates the possibility that those who moved their job from government administration to private-sector management would not change their careers again. If that were the case, then a pay raise would not help to "recapture these capable administrators."
Thus, answer choice (D) strengthens the argument.
Does the negation of answer choice (D) make the argument fall apart? Yes.
Negation: People who moved from jobs in government administration to private-sector management would not necessarily choose to change careers again."
If this is true, then the government would not be able to "recapture these capable administrators by raising salaries to a level comparable to those of the private sector."
Thus, if answer choice (D) were negated, the conclusion of the argument would no longer necessarily follow.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
AdvaithOctober 28, 2015
Could you please explain why B does not strengthen the conclusion.
MehranNovember 7, 2015
Thank you for your question. Please notice that the stimulus draws a link between (a) experienced and extremely capable government administrators, (b) their pay level, and (c) the overall functioning of public agencies. The conclusion that "the functioning of public agencies will be improved" if the government raises salaries to a level comparable to the private sector--does not assume that the "most important factor" re: how well government agencies function is the administrators' amount of experience. Although administrators' amount of experience is ONE important factor, the argument does not say it is the MOST important. This is why answer choice (B) is wrong.
Hope this helps. Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
Ro13July 22, 2018
So if the conclusion in this passage is "Government will be able to recapture these capable administrators by raising salaries to a level comparable to those of the private sector." Then what would that make the last sentence "the functioning of public agencies will be improved"? I thought this would be the conclusion.
ChristopherJuly 28, 2018
@Ro13, the last sentence doesn't play much a role at all in the logic presented within the argument. It could potentially be seen as the main point of the passage, but ultimately, for what the question is asking, it's largely irrelevant.
Not every sentence is logically necessary in every question, and it's not uncommon for the LSAT makers to add a little superfluous information to muddy the water. You've got to look for the logical progression within the argument and see where the logic flows, even if half the sentences in the question are just fluff.
I know that's kind of a non-answer, but I hope it helps.
nelsonOctober 22, 2018
Why does the negation of D ( People who moved from jobs in government administration to private-sector management would not necessarily choose to change careers again.) negate the conclusion? It is my understanding that we should be looking for an answering whose negation negates our conclusion. This one just makes the conclusion not necessarily follow.
