LSAT 36, Logical Reasoning II, Q24, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: The argument criticizing the newspaper article employs…

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

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 argument agrees with the newspaper’s evidence. But it adds new context that supports a different conclusion.

___________

1. The author agrees that strikes are declining. But they think that is a sign of union strength.
2. The analysis isn’t outdated. It’s simply wrong. Strikes were never the main point of unions.
3. CORRECT. The argument re-interpreted the evidence about the lack of strikes. It argued that lack of strikes means unions are strong instead. 
4. The argument didn’t talk about the newspaper’s motives. It just disagreed with the paper. 
5. The argument didn’t have anything to say about the interests of management. It only talked about the common goals of unions and other members of society. That doesn’t necessarily include management. 

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---