PrepTest 112, Section 3, Question 23
A newspaper article on Britain's unions argued that(82 more words not shown)
The argument criticizing the newspaper(14 more words not shown)
- AThe negotiating position(24 more words not shown)
- BAlthough unions represent(22 more words not shown)
- CThere is no(19 more words not shown)
- DThe reason for(17 more words not shown)
- EWith strong unions(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the unions don't need to strike because employers are already willing to negotiate?
Fewer strikes could then reflect successful bargaining rather than declining power. Counting strikes doesn't automatically tell us how much a union can obtain for its members. That makes me skeptical of the newspaper's inference.
The critic goes further, though, saying that calling a strike signals a weak negotiating position. I'm not sure that follows either. What if a strike is how workers bring an unwilling employer to the table? The ability to stop work could be part of their bargaining strength. We can understand the critic's argument without treating that stronger claim as established.
What we’re looking for
For the main-conclusion question, my first thought is the claim I was just questioning: strikes show weakness. But we need to keep the whole exchange in view as we compare the answers. The passage begins with a newspaper using declining strikes as evidence of declining union strength. What does the critic's discussion of strong unions do to that original inference?
Working the answers
- A
This narrows the claim to a union whose only available means is a strike or threat of one. The critic doesn't impose that “only means” qualification; the stated claim concerns calling a strike. More importantly, that discussion is part of the response to the newspaper's evidence, not the overall point of the response.
- B
Common interests are mentioned in the final sentence: unions can work with others toward shared goals. That helps explain how strong unions could achieve things without strikes. But the passage isn't mainly trying to establish that shared interests exist. That point contributes to the challenge to the newspaper's interpretation.
- CCorrect
This steps back from my initial focus on strikes as a sign of weakness. That claim is being used to criticize the newspaper's basis for concluding that union strength is declining. If strong unions don't need strikes, declining strikes aren't good evidence of declining strength.
C is carefully limited to what the newspaper article said. It doesn't prove that British unions are getting stronger or that their strength cannot decline. It says the evidence described doesn't give us a reason to accept the newspaper's conclusion. That is the point the supporting discussion serves.
- D
The critic rejects treating the organization of strikes as the reason unions exist. The passage describes cooperation toward shared goals as something strong unions can pursue without calling strikes. D puts strikes back at the center in the way the critic challenges.
- E
Saying strong unions can work toward profitable and humane conditions doesn't say those conditions are impossible without strong unions. E adds that absolute requirement. It also changes the subject from evaluating the newspaper's evidence to establishing what society needs for good working conditions.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.