PrepTest 124, Section 2, Question 21
Labor representative: Social historians have shown conclusively that(42 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(14 more words not shown)
- AUntil recently it(11 more words not shown)
- BMost factories in(7 more words not shown)
- CWorking conditions in(10 more words not shown)
- DWorkers typically plan(8 more words not shown)
- EWages in this(5 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if striking isn't worth the risk to these workers?
Suppose they worry that a strike could cost them their jobs. Better conditions five years later wouldn't do much for someone who had already been fired. That's a possible reason to refuse even while knowing about the usual improvement after strikes.
I also wouldn't assume that the historical pattern proves strikes were the sole cause of those improvements. Perhaps broader labor movements or legislation helped. But the passage doesn't ask us to establish the cause. It gives us a puzzle about the workers' behavior: they know this pattern and still won't strike.
What we’re looking for
To resolve that puzzle, I'd look for a reason the expected benefit doesn't justify striking from their perspective. Fear of losing their jobs is my initial guess. We should also be open to another reason these particular workers wouldn't expect enough benefit.
Working the answers
- A
This describes what people used to believe. The passage explicitly says these workers are familiar with the finding that conditions usually improve after strikes. An old belief doesn't explain their current refusal unless we add that they still rely on it despite what they now know. A doesn't say that.
- B
New ownership doesn't automatically mean better working conditions. You might imagine workers waiting for a better owner, but B only establishes turnover in ownership. It doesn't tell us the changes help workers or make striking less worthwhile. We would have to supply that extra connection.
- C
Being better off than workers somewhere else doesn't make conditions here good. These workers still face poor conditions and know about the usual improvement after strikes. A comparison with an even worse industry doesn't explain why they decline that opportunity.
- DCorrect
Here is another way the workers might miss the benefit. They plan to spend only three years in the industry, while the improvement described in the passage comes after five. They could reasonably expect to be elsewhere by the time conditions improve.
This isn't my original guess that they fear being fired. But it answers the same question: why undertake a strike for a benefit they don't expect to receive? They might care about future workers too, but D makes their reluctance easier to understand.
- E
Annual raises don't establish that the poor working conditions have improved or that striking isn't worth considering. Even the raises' financial value is unclear: a small increase could fail to keep pace with rising prices. E gives no clear reason these workers would pass up improved conditions.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.