A newspaper article on Britain's unions argued that their strength was declining. ███ █████████ ████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ █████████ ███ ██ ████████ ████████ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ███ █████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ █████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███████████
The author concludes that calling a strike indicates that the negotiating position of a union is weak. As evidence, the author points out that strong unions do not need to call strikes. Instead, these unions concentrate on working with others in the labor market to achieve common goals.
The author counters the position held by newspaper article. He does this by showing that the cause-and-effect relationship the article bases their claim on is reversed. It’s not that a decreasing number of strikes causes a union to lose strength, it’s that a union gaining strength causes the number of strikes to decrease.
The argument criticizing the newspaper ███████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
questioning the accuracy ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ ████
detailing historical changes ████ ████ ███ █████████ █████████ ████████ ████████
reinterpreting evidence that ███ █████████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ███ █████████ █████████
arguing that the █████████ █████████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ██████
pointing to common █████████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████████ █████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███████