Source: A Concise Introduction to Logic (10 Ed, 2008) by Patrick Hurley
[Question on p 597:]6. Missing Premise Question
Unequal pay for men and women is a completely indefensible practice and one that must be stopped immediately.
[1.] After all, can anyone seriously doubt that women have as much right to self-esteem as men?
[2.] Surely this fact alone is reason enough to justify their right to earn as much money as men.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the above argument depends?
(A) A person who has less money than another has less self-esteem.
(b) People who do not have jobs lack self-esteem.
(c) Women and men who perform similar jobs should earn similar salaries.
(D) Equal pay for equal work is a constitutionally guaranteed right of all workers.
(E) High self-esteem is as important to women as it is to men.
[ANSWER on p 603:]6. This argument has the following structure:
[1.1.] Stated: Women have as much right to self-esteem as men.
[4.] Missing: Money is an essential part of self-esteem.
[3.1.] Stated: Women have as much right to money as men.
My Problem: I agree with the solution’s paraphrases (1.1 and 3.1), but I disagree with 4.
To me, the missing premise should instead be 5 as follows:
5. Since women have as much right to self-esteem as men, women should earn as money as men.
6. So is 4 wrong?
7. Rather than ‘essential part’, should 4 be stated as a Necessary Condition or Sufficient Condition?