LR Question 8 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Union member: Some members of our labor union are…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: We shouldn’t strike now.
REASONING: A strike would be financially difficult.
ANALYSIS: This union organizer only mentioned the downsides of striking now. They ignored whether there are benefits.
Strikes always pose financially difficulties to unions. The reason unions strike is that they hope to get benefits from the strike that outweigh the downsides.
___________
- Actually, the organizer did consider this: a strike would reduce the strike fund, even if there is no fine.
- This doesn’t matter. Union members probably have enough context to understand what a major financial cost would look like.
- CORRECT. The union member only mentions downsides to striking. They ignore any possible benefits.
- The union member wasn’t comparing all factors that affect the union’s bargaining position. They were just claiming that the financial loss would be unacceptable.
- It’s possible there will never be a good time to strike. That doesn’t mean the union should strike now.
If there’s never a good time to strike in the future, and now isn’t a good time, then the union simply shouldn’t strike, ever.
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
If the conclusion is to not strike now, wouldn’t the argument (E), attacking the conclusion directly, be more effective?
The union member doesn’t need to establish there will be a better opportunity to strike at a later time in order to prove that the union must not strike now. Consider this example: What if a union knew that striking immediately would be catastrophic to their cause, without any discernible benefit? Would they need to establish that striking at a later time would be better in order to make the argument that striking now would be a bad idea? No, they’d simply need to establish that striking now is a bad idea.
(C), on the other hand, attacks a primary issue with this argument. Sure, striking now has some drawbacks, but if the benefits outweigh the costs, then that would seriously undermine the argument that striking now is a bad idea.