Q2 - Programmer: We computer programmers

[jardinsouslapluie5]

So is this asking that those average technical writer people are all staying at M longer than average programmers?
Because of "directly tied to seniority?"

I kind of get it.
But could you break down little bit deeper, please?
Thank you.

[ohthatpatrick]

The programmers want raises to make their average salary closer to that of the technical writers. Currently the writers' average salary is 20% higher.

The executive justifies that disparity by saying that many writers have been there longer than many programmers, and seniority is the big determinant of raises.

Is that a fair rebuttal?

There are a few ways we could continue to believe that the current pay gap is unfair:

How MUCH longer have the writers been there? If they've only been there 1 or 2 more years than the programmers, then I don't think that small amount of extra seniority would justify the 20% gap.

What is the rate at which programmers vs. writers get raises? Perhaps the writers get a 6% raise each year, while the programmers only get a 3% raise each year. This salary structure would indeed be tied to seniority, but it would still seem a little unfair to the programmers.

Have MOST writers worked there longer than MOST programmers? The word "many" is unspecific and could mean only a handful. Let's say programmers on average have worked there 15 years, while writers on average have worked there 10 years. (this would suggest that programmers should have the higher average salary). It's still possible that many writers have worked there longer than many programmers. If we take the writers who have worked there the longest and compare them to the programmers who have worked there the shortest, then THOSE writers will have more seniority. But to fairly compare the two groups overall, we need to know if the MAJORITY of writers have been there longer than the MAJORITY of the programmers.

(A) we don't need to clarify this point. It doesn't matter whether any writers used to be programmers. We are primarily concerned with who has more seniority overall: the current group of writers or the current group of programmers?

(B) This is what we need to know, because the group with the higher average seniority should have the higher average salary, according to the executive's claims. The executive only told us that SOME writers have more seniority than SOME programmers.

(C) We don't need clarification here. The executive said that salary and benefits are tied to seniority.

(D) The executive's past employment history has nothing to do with the essential question of "who has more seniority: programmers or writers?"

(E) same deal here. The executive's salary has nothing to do with the essential question.

Hope this helps.

[contropositive]

I don't understand what the word "average" in answer choice B is for. The only time average was mentioned was about the average amount programmers get paid. what is average seniority?

[ohthatpatrick]

The word "many" is unspecific. It can mean something very big, like
"Many people are right handed" ( > 80%)
or something very small, like
"Many people are hit by lightning every year" ( < 1%)

Since the exec is using "many writers" as his basis for arguing, we need to know what proportion of the writers he's referring to.

I could argue that a $100,000 Tesla car is very affordable because "many people make that much money in a month" (such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Cuban)

Would you be convinced?

Probably not. You'd probably be likely to retort, "Patrick, the AVERAGE monthly salary is about $4000."

That would be an effective rebuttal, because it shows that the sample I provided with my "many" claim was a pretty unrepresentative sample.

Similarly, the "many technical writers" cited by the Mytheco exec might be unrepresentative of writers/programmers in general.

AVERAGE is a statistic that takes the WHOLE population into account, so you're bound to get something more representative.

Consider this set of data.

10 writers, 10 programmers work at the company.

Years of seniority for the writers:
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 8, 12, 20, 20, 25

Years of seniority for the programmers:
10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10

This example fits what the Mytheco exec describes: "many writers have worked for longer than many of the programmers". i.e., the writers who worked 12, 20, 20, and 25 years each have worked for longer than many of the programmers.

And the exec explains that salary is based on seniority. So THESE writers SHOULD make more money than any of the programmers.

But should writers "receive, on average, 20 percent more in salary" than programmers?

It doesn't seem fair if you look at average seniority.

If you add up all years the writers have worked vs. the ones programmers have worked, you get this:

Avg. seniority for the writers = 9 yrs. (90/10)
Avg. seniority for the programmers = 10 yrs (100/10)

Since the PROGRAMMERS have more seniority overall than the writers, the PROGRAMMERS average salary should be higher.

Hope this helps.