Self-study
Union member: Some members of our labor union are calling for an immediate strike. ███ █ ██████ █████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ █ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ██ ██████ █ █████ █████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ████
Argument Summary
Some members of the union want to strike now. The author pushes back: a strike would deplete the strike fund and trigger a steep fine, which adds up to a major financial loss. Therefore, no strike.
The author has done one half of a cost-benefit analysis. The cost half. The argument lists what would be lost from striking and never asks what might be gained.
COSTS (counted)
depleted strike fund
steep fine
= major financial loss
BENEFITS (ignored)
??
Flawed Cost-Benefit Analysis
The flaw is the missing half. A strike isn't an arbitrary act of self-harm; it's a tool. Workers strike to win things such as wage increases or better working conditions. Those potential benefits are exactly the kind of thing that would have to be weighed against the financial cost before you could conclude "we must not strike."
Substitute any other context. "I shouldn't go to the dentist because it costs money and hurts." True about the costs. But that ignores the benefit of, say, having healthy teeth. The financial loss from striking is real. But so is the upside the union members might achieve by striking.
8.
The union member's argument is ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██
a
fails to consider ████ █ ██████ █████ █████ ███ █████ ██ ██████ █ █████████ ████ ████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ███████
This adds another piece to the cost side of the argument, not to the missing benefit side. The argument has already established that a strike would cause major financial loss; pointing out that the loss could happen for other reasons too just enlarges the cost side. The actual flaw is on the other end of the analysis. The author never accounts for what striking might gain.
b
fails to define ██████████ ████ ███████████ █ █████ █████████ ████
How big "major" is doesn't matter to the argument's structure. Whether the loss is $10,000 or $10 million, the argument still has the same flaw: it weighs cost without weighing benefit.
c
fails to consider ████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ █ ██████ █████ ████████ ███ █████
This accurately describes the flaw. The author lists costs and concludes "must not strike," without ever asking what striking might gain. If the gains are big enough (wage increases, better working conditions), they could outweigh the financial loss, and the conclusion wouldn't follow.
d
takes for granted ████ ███ ████ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ████████
The argument never claims financial strength is the most important factor in the union's bargaining position. It just claims a major financial loss is bad enough to rule out striking now. The argument could make sense without thinking financial strength is the most important factor; it just needs the financial loss to count as one cost worth taking seriously.
e
fails to establish ████ █████ ████ ██ █ ██████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ██ █ █████ ████
(E) treats the argument as if it were comparative: "don't strike now because we'll have a better chance later." That's not the argument. The author can reject striking now without taking any position on whether or when to strike later. Consider this analogous argument if you're still confused: "Don't eat that mushroom now; it's poisonous." That argument doesn't depend on the mushroom being safe to eat later. Maybe you shouldn't eat the mushroom in the future, too.