Labor representative: Social historians have

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact Cheats Paradox6% picked this

   Until recently it was widely believed that strikes do not generally

   It doesn't matter if there once was an era when workers didn't know strikes were followed by improved working conditions. Because we already know that THESE workers know. It would be cheating the paradox if we acted like, "the reason these workers won't strike is because they don't realize that strikes are usually followed by better conditions."

   6%
2. B

   Weaker Impact4% picked this

   Most factories in this industry change ownership every

   Could the idea of frequently changing ownership be a reason why the workers don't want to strike? Perhaps, since maybe workers would feel like there's no point in striking to negotiate better terms with the owners, if there are just going to be new owners in a couple years. But for that to be a compelling reason not to strike, we'd have to add in the assumption that, "If you think your factory is going to change ownership, you wouldn't think it was worth it to strike". That's not terrible; there's some common sense there. But it's not as strong as (D)'s idea that, "If you think you're only going to work in this industry for three years, then you wouldn't care about striking (knowing it takes five years for working conditions to actually improve)."

   4%
3. C

   Irrelevant Comparison: other industries2% picked this

   Working conditions in many other industries are worse than conditions in

   The paradox is only about this industry, where strikes are usually followed by better working conditions. It doesn't matter if other industries don't follow that pattern. We want to know why workers in this industry don't want to strike, given that they know this pattern holds within their industry.

   2%
4. D

   Correct81% picked this

   Workers typically plan to work in this industry only

   Why this is right

   If you know that strikes are usually followed five years later by better working conditions, but you're only planning to work three years, then what's the point in striking? You won't be at this job long enough to enjoy the improved working conditions five years from now.

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

   81%
5. E

   No Impact Cheats Paradox7% picked this

   Wages in this industry have increased

   We might think, "since wages are increasing, there's no incentive to strike!" But we were told that the working conditions are poor, so there's definitely an incentive to strike. If we told ourselves otherwise, we'd be cheating the paradox.

   7%