PrepTest 135, Section 4, Question 8
Union member: Some members of our labor union(38 more words not shown)
The union member's argument is(9 more words not shown)
- Afails to consider(18 more words not shown)
- Bfails to define(7 more words not shown)
- Cfails to consider(13 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(16 more words not shown)
- Efails to establish(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Isn't a strike fund there to help pay for a strike?
Using the fund still has a cost, and the fine adds another one. We can accept that the union would suffer a major financial loss without accepting that it must not strike. The missing question is what the members might gain in return.
Suppose a strike produced major improvements in employment conditions. Those improvements might be worth more to the members than the money they would lose. That possibility doesn't prove they should strike. It shows why counting costs alone doesn't establish that they shouldn't.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks us to identify that one-sided comparison: the union member considers the losses without considering whether the benefits could outweigh them.
Working the answers
- A
The speaker already identifies a loss apart from the fine: the strike would cut into the strike fund. More importantly, identifying another cost wouldn't address the missing benefits. The problem isn't failure to imagine enough ways a strike could cost money.
- B
We can understand 'major financial loss' well enough to follow the argument without a precise dollar threshold. Even a clearly specified, substantial loss could be worthwhile if the benefits were greater. A definition wouldn't fix the missing comparison.
- CCorrect
The benefits could outweigh the costs. Improved employment terms, for example, might be worth a large immediate loss. The speaker needs to address that possibility before using the strike's price tag to conclude that the members must not strike now.
- D
The argument is about whether to strike, not about which factor contributes most to the union's bargaining position. Someone could worry about a strike's financial cost while thinking solidarity or public support was the union's greatest bargaining strength. The argument doesn't require the ranking D attributes to it.
- E
The speaker need not establish that a later strike would be better in order to oppose a strike now. Perhaps no strike would ever be worthwhile. The missing comparison is between this strike's benefits and costs, not necessarily between two possible strike dates.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.