Self-study
Labor representative: Social historians have shown conclusively that if workers strike when the working conditions at their jobs are poor, those conditions usually significantly improve after five years. ████████ ███████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ █████ ████ ███████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ ██████ █████ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████
Stimulus Summary
A labor representative lays out a puzzle. Historians have apparently proven that when workers with poor working conditions go on strike, those conditions usually improve a lot within 5 years. Workers in this industry know this. And conditions in this industry are poor. Yet these workers refuse to strike.
Anticipation
Let's articulate what's unexpected. If workers know that strikes tend to improve poor working conditions, and they're currently dealing with poor working conditions, we'd expect them to strike. But they don't. What could explain this?
Next, think about the kind of information that might resolve the discrepancy. Don't expect to predict the correct answer in specific terms. This step is just designed to get us thinking critically and to be ready to recognize a potential explanation in the answers. For example, maybe there's something unusual about this industry that makes striking less effective here than the general finding would suggest. Or maybe there's a reason these particular workers wouldn't benefit from the improvements even if the strike worked. Keep an open mind and be ready to use process of elimination.
21.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ███████████████
a
Until recently it ███ ██████ ████████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████ ███████ ███████████
Irrelevant, because the stimulus explicitly tells us that workers in this industry are familiar with the historians' finding that strikes improve conditions. What people used to believe doesn't matter; the puzzle is about workers who currently know strikes work but still refuse to strike.
b
Most factories in ████ ████████ ██████ █████████ █████ ███ ██████
This is a tempting trap. You might reason that if ownership changes every two years, a strike against the current owner wouldn't lead to lasting improvements, because new owners wouldn't feel bound by any pressure applied to previous owners. So workers might think strikes wouldn't actually work here.
But the historians' finding is presented as a general pattern that these workers know about. The stimulus gives us no reason to believe the research excludes industries with ownership turnover. We have no reason to think that ownership turnover affects the likelihood of significant improvement in working conditions.
c
Working conditions in ████ █████ ██████████ ███ █████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████ █████████
The discrepancy is about why workers in this industry don't strike despite their poor conditions. How conditions compare to other industries doesn't explain their decision. Poor conditions are still poor conditions, and a strike would still be expected to improve them.
d
Workers typically plan ██ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ █████ ██████
This helps resolve the discrepancy. The benefits of striking take 5 years to materialize. But workers in this industry only plan to stay for 3 years. So these workers don't expect to reap the benefits of striking.
From the worker's perspective, striking is all cost and no personal payoff. They'd take on the risks of striking (lost wages, potential retaliation, disruption) and then leave the industry before any of the improvements arrive to benefit them.
e
Wages in this ████████ ████ █████████ ████ █████
Wages and working conditions are different things. The stimulus tells us working conditions are poor, and the historians' finding is that strikes improve working conditions. Annual wage increases don't address bad conditions, and they don't explain why workers wouldn't want those conditions fixed. (E) doesn't give these workers a reason to skip the strike.