PrepTest 112, Section 3, Question 24
A newspaper article on Britain's unions argued that(82 more words not shown)
The argument criticizing the newspaper(8 more words not shown)
- Aquestioning the accuracy(9 more words not shown)
- Bdetailing historical changes(7 more words not shown)
- Creinterpreting evidence that(13 more words not shown)
- Darguing that the(14 more words not shown)
- Epointing to common(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If workers get an acceptable agreement without walking out, why would they need a strike?
That gives us a way to read the falling number and size of strikes differently. The newspaper treats the decline as evidence that unions are weaker. The critic suggests that strong unions can obtain results through negotiation and cooperation, making strikes unnecessary.
I still have questions about the critic's stronger claim that calling a strike shows weakness. A strike could be a way to exert bargaining pressure. But this question asks us to describe the response, not decide whether its picture of labor relations is correct. We need to follow what the critic does with the newspaper's evidence.
What we’re looking for
The prediction is a reinterpretation. Both sides can accept the decline in strikes while disagreeing about what it indicates. The critic takes what the newspaper sees as a sign of weakness and reads it as something we would expect from strong unions.
Working the answers
- A
The critic doesn't say the newspaper counted strikes incorrectly or that strikes actually increased. The disagreement concerns what the reported decrease means. Challenging the accuracy of the evidence would be a different response from accepting the figures and challenging the inference drawn from them.
- B
Referring to a modern industrial society doesn't amount to detailing historical changes in unions or the labor market. The critic doesn't walk us through an earlier era and show how its conditions changed. B describes a historical comparison that isn't supplied.
- CCorrect
The same pattern receives an opposite interpretation. The newspaper sees fewer and smaller strikes as evidence of weakening unions. The critic says strong unions needn't strike because they can work successfully with others, so fewer strikes can fit strength rather than weakness.
That is why we don't need a dispute about the numbers. The response targets the meaning assigned to those numbers. We can identify that method even if we remain unconvinced that every strike signals weakness.
- D
Nothing establishes what motivated the newspaper to make its argument. The critic doesn't accuse the writer of trying to weaken unions or change their role. The attack is on the relationship between the evidence and the conclusion, not on a hidden purpose attributed to the writer.
- E
This is tempting because the final sentence does mention common goals. But those goals help explain why strong unions might not need strikes; they aren't the central object of the dispute. The passage also doesn't establish that the newspaper ignored shared interests. C describes the main move: reinterpreting the decrease in strikes, with cooperation offered as part of that interpretation.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.