A newspaper article on Britain’s

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Role24% picked this

   The negotiating position of a union is weak if the only means it has of achieving its end is a strike or

   This is an assumption we can pull out of the author's thinking in the sentence that begins "Surely, ...". But this idea is there to play a supporting role. Unions are plenty strong right now after all, 1. fewer strikes and 2. if a union needs to call a strike, then its negotiating position is weak

   24%
2. B

   Wrong Role3% picked this

   Although unions represent the interests of their members, that does not preclude them from having interests in common with other

   This is an inference we could derive from the final sentence, but the author was not writing this paragraph to convince us that "it's possible for unions to have interests in common with other participants in the labor market". That idea isn't supported by any explicit claims, and it has nothing to do with rebutting the newspaper article.

   3%
3. C

   Correct68% picked this

   There is no reason to believe, on the basis of what the newspaper article said, that union strength

   Why this is right

   This looks like what we were looking for: the author is writing this paragraph as a rebuttal to the newspaper article. It claimed that unions were declining in strength because of fewer strikes, and our author builds the case that striking unions are weaker unions whereas non-striking unions are actually stronger unions. The effect of her rebuttal is to show that the article's evidence makes no sense. They've got the relationship between strikes and union strength inverted. If the author were to say, "Because their evidence sucked, their conclusion must be false", she would be committing the Unproven vs. Proven False flaw. This answer is making her implied conclusion the correct/responsible thing to say at this point: the evidence presented by the article does not justify their conclusion.

   Skill tested: Main Conclusion · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   68%
4. D

   Contradicted3% picked this

   The reason for unions’ existence is to work for goals such as profitable and humane working

   This is a jumble of words used in the paragraph, but it ultimately contradicts what the author is saying. She is saying that strikes are NOT the reason for unions to exist. They are a last resort, but a strong union has enough power that it can use other means to try to improve conditions for workers (such as working with others in the labor market to achieve common goals). This answer is saying that our author thinks that the reason for unions' existence is to work towards goals by organizing strikes.

   3%
5. E

   Too Strong: impossible1% picked this

   With strong unions it is possible for a modern industrial society to achieve profitable and humane working conditions, but without

   This has nothing to do with our prediction, which is "Hey, article, you're wrong about saying unions' strength is declining". And it also is giving us a very extreme idea, "without strong unions, profitable and humane working conditions are impossible", and the author hasn't said anything to support something so dramatic.

   1%