Q21 - Labor Representative: Social historians

[Gabyn3]

Can you explain why D is the right answer and provide a breakdown of why the others are wrong? Thanks so much!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

We're trying to explain why workers don't usually strike even when they're working conditions are poor, when we know that they are usually able to get their working conditions improved after 5 years if they do strike.

My gut says that it's something about the 5 year waiting period... Think of it this way. Workers who strike take a risk that they might lose their job. So if workers will not see the benefits for 5 years, they better plan on sticking with that job for a while, otherwise they won't see any of the benefits and yet will take on all the risk.

Answer choice (D) addresses this possibility by pointing out that in this industry workers only stick in that line of work for 3 years. All the risk, none of the reward. That would explain why these workers don't go out on strike.

(A) is irrelevant. We care about what's happening now - not what people thought was true in the past.
(B) is irrelevant. Changing ownership doesn't provide a reason to not go out on strike.
(C) still leaves open the possibility that the working conditions in this industry are bad. Others may be worse but so what?
(E) is irrelevant. Wages are not at issue. The issue is working conditions.

Does that answer your question?

[amil91]

(B) is irrelevant. Changing ownership doesn't provide a reason to not go out on strike.

Could you expand on your explanation for choice B some more? I got it down to B and D and chose B because the text of D says 'plan to' whereas B is a bit more absolute in that the ownership does change. If you compare the rest of each answer choice to each other they match up about equally: most factories matches with workers typically. To me the language of 'plan to' was weaker than what B said as one can plan to do something and never do it at all. Given this, B made sense to me because if the ownership is likely to change, what's the point of striking as the new owner isn't going to care about strikes from a couple years ago. I think they are both good answer choices and would like a bit more explanation as to how I could eliminate B.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Given this, B made sense to me because if the ownership is likely to change, what's the point of striking as the new owner isn't going to care about strikes from a couple years ago.

Here's the part of your understanding associated with answer choice (B) that is creating the problem. Does the argument ever suggest that strikes are only effective if the ownership stays the same. It simply says that if strikers work, after 5 years the conditions will improve. That doesn't seem to suggest that if new owners come in, that this is no longer the case.

Anyone considering whether to purchase a business is likely to consider the relationship between labor and management before making such an acquisition. Of course it's possible that negligent buyers may not be aware of whether workers have been striking, but it doesn't matter. The stimulus made it clear in the evidence that after 5 years (no matter what) working conditions improve.

Hope that helps!

[amil91]

Given this, B made sense to me because if the ownership is likely to change, what's the point of striking as the new owner isn't going to care about strikes from a couple years ago.

Here's the part of your understanding associated with answer choice (B) that is creating the problem. Does the argument ever suggest that strikes are only effective if the ownership stays the same. It simply says that if strikers work, after 5 years the conditions will improve. That doesn't seem to suggest that if new owners come in, that this is no longer the case.

Anyone considering whether to purchase a business is likely to consider the relationship between labor and management before making such an acquisition. Of course it's possible that negligent buyers may not be aware of whether workers have been striking, but it doesn't matter. The stimulus made it clear in the evidence that after 5 years (no matter what) working conditions improve.

Hope that helps!

Ok, I think I was just reading too much into it and I decided on B over the correct answer because of the words 'plan to' which I thought was too weak, but I see now why this is a better answer.