Q13 - Hendry: Most employee strikes should be legally

by **ohthatpatrick** Tue Sep 11, 2018 5:24 pm

Question Type:
ID the Disagreement

Stimulus Breakdown:
H: Most strikes should be legal, but not university faculty strikes, since these harm the students and I follow the principal that strikes that harm one's customers shouldn't be legal.
M: If you follow that principle, then most strikes should not be legal.

Answer Anticipation:
Does M say that most strikes should NOT be legal? Yes, if you accept H's principle, but not necessarily otherwise.
Does M think university faculty should be legal? No comment.
Does M think that faculty strikes do NOT harm the students? No comment.
Does M *not* accept H's principle? No comment.

It doesn't look like M disagrees with any of H's claims, so then we ask "Does M disagree with some assumption that H is making?" H cites a rule that "If it's harms customers -> strike shouldn't be legal". H also says "most strikes should be legal", so he must believe that "most strikes do NOT harm customers". Since M is arguing that "according to H's rule, most strikes shouldn't be legal", he must believe that "most strikes DO harm customers".

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) M doesn't say anything about unviersities / faculty / students.

(B) YES, as we prephrased.

(C) M doesn't say anything about unviersities / faculty / students.

(D) This is tempting, but M doesn't give us any clear indication where he stands on whether strikes should / shouldn't be legal. M is only saying to H, "IF we followed your rule, then XYZ would be true." We have no way of knowing what M would believe if we don't follow H's rule.

(E) M doesn't say anything about unviersities / faculty / students.

Takeaway/Pattern: Some ID the Disagreement Q's are easy when it comes to spotting the disagreement but tricky when it comes to finding an answer choice that safely expresses that disagreement. This one was really hard when it came to finding the disagreement, but then super quick and easy on the backend. If you go through each of person 1's claims and NONE of them were something person 2 was arguing against, then you ask yourself whether person 2 was arguing against something person 1 was assuming.

#officialexplanation