Passage Summary: A newspaper boss says it's fine to pay their reporters less than the competition because the experience they get on the job is worth the pay cut.

Conclusion: The lower-than-average salaries at the newspaper are justified because the reporters receive valuable training on the job.

Reasoning: The training provided through assignments compensates for the fact that the newspaper pays less than its main competitors.

Analysis: The executive's defense rests on the idea that this training is a unique 'perk' that balances out the low pay. To undermine this, we should look for evidence that the competitors offer the same or better benefits. If the higher-paying newspapers also provide great training, then the training at this paper isn't actually 'compensating' for anything—it's just a standard part of the job. It's hard to justify a pay cut for a 'bonus' that everyone else is getting for free.