Self-study
A newspaper article on Britain's unions argued that their strength was declining. ███ █████████ ████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ █████████ ███ ██ ████████ ████████ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ███ █████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ █████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███████████
Summarize Argument
The author starts by introducing an argument made in a newspaper article, which claimed that Britain's unions were declining in strength. As evidence, the article cited the declining number and size of strikes. The author points out an assumption this use of evidence makes — that the purpose of unions is to organize strikes — and explains why this evidence doesn't support the article's conclusion. He argues that calling a strike is actually a sign that a union is in a weak position, whereas strong unions can focus on other goals.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Notice that the author doesn't offer a conclusion of his own. He doesn't explicitly say anything about what he believes about the strength or weakness of Britain's unions. While he is critical of the newspaper article's reasoning, he mainly criticizes the article's use of evidence to reach its conclusion, not the conclusion itself. He argues that the fact that strikes have been decreasing in number and size, far from indicating that unions are growing weaker, as the article claims, might be evidence that they are in a strong position.
24.
The argument criticizing the newspaper ███████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
questioning the accuracy ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ ████
The author does not say that the article is wrong to claim that strikes are decreasing in number and size. If anything, the author takes the accuracy of that evidence for granted. He just has a different interpretation of what that evidence means than the article does.
b
detailing historical changes ████ ████ ███ █████████ █████████ ████████ ████████
The author never claims the article’s analysis is "outdated." Though he mentions a "modern industrial society," that's kind of a red herring: we don't know what the author thinks about premodern or preindustrial societies, let alone whether he thinks the article's analysis would be correct in such societies. And the author certainly doesn't describe any historical changes in the stimulus.
c
reinterpreting evidence that ███ █████████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ███ █████████ █████████
This is correct. The author argues that the article's evidence — the fact that the number and size of strikes are decreasing — is not evidence of unions losing strength, as the article claims, but might even be evidence of unions gaining strength.
d
arguing that the █████████ █████████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ██████
The author never comments on the motives of the article. He just focuses on the article's use of evidence.
e
pointing to common █████████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████████ █████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███████
The author never says anything about common interests among unions and management, nor does he claim that the article ignored such interests.