Union member: Some members

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection3% picked this

   fails to consider that a strike might cause the union to suffer a financial loss even if

   If this were true, it would only add to the reasons we shouldn't strike. We're looking for reasons that we should strike.

   3%
2. B

   Never a Flaw1% picked this

   fails to define adequately what constitutes a major

   Flaw answer choices asking us for a specific measurement, exact number, named source, etc. is always wrong. We understand that a "major financial loss", whatever the specific value or percentage of income that is, is a severe financial disincentive. That is all we need to know to judge the logic of this argument.

   1%
3. C

   Correct86% picked this

   fails to consider that the benefits to be gained from a strike might

   Why this is right

   This, if true, would definitely be an Objection. Our author's reasoning problem was that he only listed the negatives associated with a given proposal. To logically conclude that we shouldn't do X, we need to acknowledge all the positives and the negatives of doing X and argue that the negatives outweigh the positives. Our author hasn't even acknowledged the potential positives.

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

   86%
4. D

   Out of Scope: bargaining position2% picked this

   takes for granted that the most important factor in the labor union's bargaining position is

   The author is definitely assuming that the union's financial security is a significant factor in determining whether or not to strike. But the author isn't ever making it seem like the union is trying to use its financial strength as a bargaining position, let alone that it's the most important factor.

   2%
5. E

   Not Required8% picked this

   fails to establish that there will be a better opportunity to strike at

   If someone says, "We should immediately move to Brazil", and I want to argue "We should not move to Brazil now", that is only speaking about whether or not we should immediately move to Brazil. This answer is inviting people to read-in too much to "We shouldn't strike now", as though it's suggesting "but we should strike later", but analyzing the truth value of "we should / shouldn't strike now" has nothing to do with later. It just has to do with calculating the pros / cons of striking now, and deciding which side outweighs the other. If I think "we should never drink arsenic", then I also think "we should not drink arsenic now", "we shouldn't drink it tomorrow", "we shouldn't drink it at 4:30 on a Tuesday", etc. If the author's case for not striking now had been that "it would be more prudent to wait for later", then we could use an answer like this. But the author's case for not striking now was, "there are negative consequences". He might think those negative consequences will always persist and thus that the decision to not strike will always persist.

   8%