Self-paced
A newspaper article on Britain's unions argued that their strength was declining. ███ █████████ ████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ █████████ ███ ██ ████████ ████████ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ███ █████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ █████ ███████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███████ ███████████
Summary
An article on Britain’s unions agreed that union strength was declining. The article cited the decreasing number and size of strikes. In a modern society, calling strikes is evidence of a weak negotiating position for a union. Strong unions do not need to call strikes. Strong unions can focus on working with others in the labor market to achieve goals.
24.
The argument criticizing the newspaper ███████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
questioning the accuracy ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███████ ████
The author never disputes the numbers. He accepts that strikes are fewer and smaller, then argues that fact means something different from what the newspaper took it to mean. Questioning the accuracy of the evidence would mean claiming the strike counts are wrong, and the author does the opposite. He takes them as given and reinterprets them.
b
detailing historical changes ████ ████ ███ █████████ █████████ ████████ ████████
The author mentions a "modern industrial society," but he never lays out historical changes that would make the article's analysis outdated. He isn't saying unions used to work one way and now work another, so the old view no longer fits.
c
reinterpreting evidence that ███ █████████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ███ █████████ █████████
The newspaper treats fewer and smaller strikes as a sign that unions are getting weaker. The author takes that same evidence and flips its meaning: calling a strike shows a union was negotiating from a weak position, so fewer strikes actually points to stronger unions. Same facts, opposite conclusion, which is what "reinterpreting evidence as indicating the opposite" describes.
d
arguing that the █████████ █████████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ██████
The author says nothing about why the newspaper reached its conclusion. He goes after what the evidence shows. There's no suggestion that the article is driven by a hidden agenda to change what unions do, so this describes an attack the author never makes.
e
pointing to common █████████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████████ █████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███████
The author does say strong unions work with others toward common goals, but he never faults the newspaper for ignoring common interests between unions and management. That line just explains why a strong union wouldn't need to strike. His strategy is reinterpreting the strike evidence, which is a different thing from what (E) describes.