Explanation
This question asks about the "partial repudiation." The
gist of that argument is that women prefer to be non-competitive, and that
therefore, the lack of women in management positions is not due to
discrimination, but preference. We can summarize the partial repudiation as
lower preference for competition -> less presence in
senior management
The correct answer will weaken this argument by weakening
its link. Choice (A) strengthens the argument, because it suggests that the
partial repudiation could explain the gap in wages. (A) is
out. Choice (B) weakens the argument: the partial repudiation would expect the
pay gap to be higher where competition is higher, so (B) would suggest there is
a problem with that theory. (B) might be the answer.
Choice (C) is more subtle, so we can come back to it. Choice (D) is out,
because it focuses on non-competitive schemes, which are supposedly immaterial
to the actual situation we are trying to explain. Choice (E) would strengthen
the argument, because it would strengthen the link between opting for
competition and getting paid more. Back to (C), which probably has an objective
defect. Imagining this situation, we see women and men competing for management
positions. The women get paid less, but compete less. They could compete less
because they are already getting paid less, or they could be getting paid less
because the argument is correct. The impact on the argument is unclear.
Therefore, (C) is out.
The correct answer is (B).
If you believe you have found an error in this question or explanation, please contact us and include the question title or URL in your message.