PT111 · S3 · Q10 Goswami: I support the striking

We know that N agrees with this (he explicitly said it). But we don't have any ammunition to support that G would disagree. We can't point to anything that sounds like G saying, "the average salary is not over $29,000". G just talked about most workers making less than $20k, but that's still compatible with average pay being over $29k.

We can't tell from either person's statements what the primary issue is for why workers are striking. We only know that G's primary reason for supporting the workers is pay, but that doesn't mean that the striking workers consider this the primary reason for why they're striking. We could fix this answer by saying, "Pay is the primary issue that should motivate someone to support these striking workers". G would agree and N would disagree with that.

It would be too hard to infer that either person is disagreeing with this, because that person would be saying, "It is unreasonable to support striking workers who are underpaid". Nordecki is the one closer to sounding like that, but he isn't saying that it's unreasonable to support striking workers. He's saying these workers aren't underpaid. Their average salary is over $29k.

We know that G would disagree with this. She supports the striking workers, so she implicitly thinks it was reasonable for them to go on strike. We can't say that N would agree with this, though. He only speaks on a conditional basis. "If pay is the issue, then I think the strike is unreasonable." But maybe pay wasn't the only or even the main issue. So it's too sweeping of a claim for us to support that N has already condemned this whole strike as unreasonable. Someone might be trying to get me to see a movie with Lady Gaga in it. If I say, "well if it's a cartoon, then I don't want to see it." We can't infer from that claim that, "Patrick doesn't want to see any movie with Lady Gaga in it." I qualified my refusal. I only rejected "cartoon movies w/ Lady Gaga".