Q1 - Activist: The average CEO is paid many times more than

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Principle-Strengthen

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: High pay of CEOs is wholly unjustified.
Evidence: CEO is paid many times what average worker is paid, but no CEO works that-many-times harder than the average worker.

Answer Anticipation:
Correct answers to Principle-Strengthen are most frequently Conditional (IF premise, THEN conclusion) or a "should"-Rule of Thumb (when you're deciding on CONC, you should base it on PREM).

Seems like the author thinks that pay should be proportional to how hard you work.

If we were trying to write an "IF premise, THEN conclusion" rule, it would sound like "If someone doesn't work X times harder than another, then they shouldn't be paid X times as much as another."

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Yup, this matches our author's judgment and criterion.

(B) There's no language in the argument about "contributing to the overall success of the company". (If anything, this is a principle that would JUSTIFY paying the CEO way more)

(C) Hahaha. I'd love it if that were CEOs justification for their exorbitant pay: "Sorry, it's just the minimum I need to live my best yacht-life!" There was no mention of "how much you need to sustain a good lifestyle".

(D) Close, but it was about "how hard you worked", not "whether you do the same work".

(E) This principle would help you conclude that someone should be working hard. It has nothing to do with how CEO pay should be set.

Takeaway/Pattern: If we were trying to move aggressively in terms of LR pacing, this is definitely the sort of question that is easy to prephrase. When we see (A) match our prediction, we could flag the problem (to indicate to ourselves that we didn't actually fully vet all five answer) and move on to Q2.

#officialexplanation