Kirlandia makes me think of kir royales. Ten phantom bonus points for anybody who knows how to make a kir royale without googling it.

And if you prefer your explanations in video form, check out this YouTube CR webinar. And if you prefer written explanations, let's start with the conclusion: according to the author, the impact of the minimum wage increase (from KD5.00 to KD5.50) on wages in Kirlandia will probably be negligible. In other words, overall, wages in Kirlandia will not change much as a result of the increase.

Why not? Well, only a very small proportion of all Kirlandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour. So when the minimum wage is increased, only that small proportion will be immediately affected and see an increase in their wages. If only that small proportion sees an increase in their wages, then it seems reasonable to conclude that the overall impact will be small.

Which of the answer choices most seriously weakens this train of thought?


The author argues that the impact will be minimal since the change will only directly affect a small proportion of Kirlandic workers. This argument is the same regardless of how long those workers have been employed at their current jobs. Choice (A) does not impact the author's argument and can be eliminated.


We are specifically told that "only a very small proportion of all Kirlandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour." If SOME firms are paying considerably less than KD5.00, then the change might have a greater effect than the author anticipates. Then again, if those firms were violating the employment regulations before, why should we expect them to comply when the new law is passed? Choice (B) would only affect the argument if those firms were suddenly compelled to comply with the minimum wage laws. Even if they did, the impact should not be that great, since this situation only applies to SOME of an already SMALL proportion of workers. (B) doesn't look great, but hang on to it if you aren't convinced.


We know that the change will direct affect only a small proportion of workers. But what if the change indirectly affects other people BESIDES those included in the small proportion? The wages of those in the small proportion (i.e. trainees) will go up. But now the trainees might be making just as much as the TRAINED workers. In order to reward the trained workers, many businesses would have to raise the wages of their trained workers (to ensure that trained workers are paid more than trainees).

If this is true, then the change will affect not only the small proportion but also any trained workers whose pay levels must be kept above those of the trainees. Choice (C) clearly expands the impact of the change beyond the negligible outcome described by the author. Thus, unlike choice (B), choice (C) directly hurts the author's argument without any additional leaps or assumptions. Hang on to this one.


Again, the author reasons that the impact will be minimal since the change will only increase the wages of a small proportion of workers. If sectors where workers earn wages that tend to be much HIGHER than the minimum are experiencing the most growth, this is further evidence that the minimum wage law will be largely inconsequential. If, on the other hand, we were told that the greatest growth has been in sectors where workers earn the minimum wage, then perhaps choice (D) would work against the author's argument (by suggesting that the NUMBER of employees earning the minimum wage is steadily growing, thus expanding the impact of the new law). As written, choice (D) does not impact the author's argument and can be eliminated.


The author (who's perhaps a heartless sociopath?) is not concerned with whether the current minimum wage (or the new minimum wage, for that matter) is sufficient to support a family. In fact, choice (E) might even suggest that some of the workers included in the small proportion currently have to work multiple jobs and/or overtime in order to support their families. Once the minimum wage is increased, those workers could earn the same total amount working a smaller number of hours. If that were the case, this would be further evidence that inflation is unlikely (since the total amount earned by those workers would not change much, if at all). Regardless, choice (E) gives us no reason to expect that the new law will impact anyone aside from the small proportion of workers currently earning less than KD5.50. Thus, choice (E) does not affect the author's argument and can be eliminated.

Choice (C) directly weakens the author's reasoning, so it is the best answer.