QUESTION TEXT: The argument criticizing the newspaper article is…
QUESTION TYPE: Complete the Argument
CONCLUSION: The likely conclusion is that the decline of strikes is not evidence of union weakness.
REASONING: A strong union doesn’t need to call strikes. Strikes are evidence of a weak bargaining position.
ANALYSIS: The whole point of the argument is to disagree with the newspaper article’s assertion that unions are weak. So the logical conclusion is that unions are not weak.
- This is true according to the argument, but it isn’t the main conclusion.
- This has nothing to do with strikes or union strength. It just tells us that unions might form alliances.
- CORRECT. The newspaper article’s conclusion is unfounded. The whole argument is directed at proving the newspaper wrong.
- The stimulus criticizes the idea that unions exist to call strikes. It’s in the second sentence.
- This doesn’t tell us whether or not we have strong unions. The whole point of the argument was to answer that question.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
isn’t A actually not supportive b/c it says the ONLY means a union has – which the stimulus actually doesn’t say? it just implies that striking is one option, thanks.
To me, the stimulus is implying that strikes are a last resort for weak unions – “strong unions do not need to call strikes”, “the calling of a strike is evidence that the negotiating position of the union was too weak”.
Answer A is saying that if a union’s only option is to call a strike, that union’s negotiating position is weak. This is exactly in line with the second quote I pulled above because, according to the author, any union who has to call a strike is providing evidence of their position’s weakness.
I hope this helps it make more sense!