Hendry: Most employee strikes should be legally permitted.
Hendry's Claims
1. Most employee strikes should be legally permitted.
2. University faculty strikes shouldn't be legally permitted.
3. Faculty strikes harm a university's students.
4. If a strike would harm the employer's customers, then it shouldn't be legally permitted.
Menkin's Responses
1. No Position. Although she says "employee strikes should almost never be legally permitted", that's only if we accept Hendry's principle. We don't know whether Menkin accepts Hendry's principle, so we don't know if Menkin actually thinks that almost no strikes should be legally permitted.
2. No Position. Menkin never says anything specifically about faculty strikes at a university.
3. No Position. Menkin never says anything specifically about faculty strikes at a university.
4. No Position. Menkin just says, "if your principle is correct", so we don't know whether Menkin thinks the principle is or isn't correct.
Evaluate
Since the 2nd speaker didn't disagree with any of the 1st speaker's explicit claims, we have to go a level deeper. Is Menkin disagreeing with one of Hendry's assumptions?
Menkin says that using Hendry's principle would contradict one of the things Hendry's claims.
Menkin is saying that Hendry's principle contradicts the idea that "most employee strikes should be legally permitted". According to the principle, a strike shouldn't be legally permitted if it would harm the employer's customers.
harm customers → shouldn't be permitted should be permitted → not harm customers
If Hendry thinks that most strikes should be permitted, then he thinks that "most strikes do not harm customers".
If Menkin thinks that most strikes shouldn't be permitted, then he thinks that "most strikes do harm customer".
Goal
Let's look for an answer about whether or not most strikes would harm the employer's customers.