tz_strawberry Wrote:At first I thought since the author says "Surely", s/he agrees with the newspaper article, but s/he only mentioned so just to admit the evidence is correct...right??
Since it starts with "A newspaper artucle...argued that", I felt maybe the author wants to deny what the newspaper article says.
It's not the common "some argue that...but" form, but it's similar...
Is my understanding correct?
You’re totally correct, TZ. This question’s form is a lot like the "some argue that... but" form.
"Surely" here doesn’t signify agreement with the newspaper article. The author uses "surely" to emphasize the importance and truth of her own point.
For example, if someone told me "Summer is the best season," I might reply "But surely we must consider the beautiful flowers and light breezes of spring!" I’m using "surely" here to underscore that flowers and breezes are really important considerations when determining the best season.
Here’s basically what the stimulus says:
The newspaper article argues that union strength is declining.
But, surely, we must consider evidence xyz!! Evidence xyz undermines the article’s reasoning.
The implied conclusion is that the article’s claim is bad. Union strength is not necessarily declining.
(C) is supported"”it gives us that implied conclusion.
(A) is a premise booster. We already know that "the calling of a strike is evidence that the negotiating position of the union was too weak."
(B) is also a premise booster. The stimulus already tells us that unions can work "with others" to achieve "common goals."
(D) is contradicted. The author believes unions should work toward their goals by means other than strikes, such as negotiation and collaboration.
(E) is unsupported. The stimulus states that unions can participate in the effort to achieve profitable and humane working conditions, but doesn’t imply that unions are
necessary to achieve this end.
Does that make sense?
