In 1992, a major newspaper circulated throughout North America paid its reporters an average salary that was much lower than the average salary paid by its principal competitors to their reporters. An executive of the newspaper argued that this practice was justified, since any shortfall that might exist in the reporters' salaries is fully compensated by the valuable training they receive through their assignments.
The statement 'The union that represented reporters at the newspaper was different from the union that represented reporters at the newspaper's competitors' most seriously undermines the justification offered by the executive.