PrepTest 114, Section 2, Question 3
David: Forbidding companies from hiring permanent replacements for(33 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- ADavid does not(17 more words not shown)
- BDavid and Lin(15 more words not shown)
- CDavid and Lin(21 more words not shown)
- DDavid and Lin(14 more words not shown)
- ELin believes it(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Would the companies really be left with too little bargaining power? David thinks banning permanent replacements would leave companies with little leverage, and he uses that consequence to call the ban unfair. I can follow why replacement workers might matter: a company that can keep operating during a strike may be less dependent on reaching an immediate agreement. But whether a particular balance is fair is a further question. We shouldn't assume our own view of labor negotiations is David's or Lin's.
Lin points to another option: temporary replacements. According to Lin, those workers would leave companies with sufficient leverage even if permanent replacements were forbidden. That challenges David's description of what the ban would do.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what the exchange most strongly supports. I'd focus on this difference in their predictions: David describes the remaining leverage as little; Lin says it would be sufficient. We don't yet have two detailed positions about how bargaining power ought to be divided.
Working the answers
- A
David doesn't say temporary replacements provide no leverage. He could think they provide some, but too little to make up for losing permanent replacements. Also keep the two kinds of worker separate: his stated objection concerns a ban on permanent replacements. A adds an absolute claim about temporary replacements that he never makes.
- B
Neither speaker calls for exactly equal leverage between companies and striking workers. David objects to the leverage he thinks companies would lose; Lin says companies would retain enough. Those statements don't establish a shared rule that the two sides should have the same amount.
- CCorrect
They disagree about how much leverage the restriction would cost companies. David says the companies would be left with little leverage. Lin responds that hiring temporary replacements would leave them with sufficient leverage. That is the contrast the exchange gives us, without adding a theory about the fairest overall distribution.
- D
This changes the disagreement from how much leverage companies would retain to how much they should have. They could agree on an acceptable amount and disagree about whether temporary replacements would provide it. Lin's response addresses the effect of the proposed restriction, so we can't infer this separate disagreement about the proper standard.
- E
Lin doesn't endorse David's judgment that forbidding permanent replacements is unfair. Lin challenges the reason David gives for that judgment. That doesn't supply Lin's full view of the proposal's fairness, much less establish agreement with David's objection.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.