Menkin: If your principle is correct, then, contrary to what you claim, employee strikes should almost never be legally permitted.
Speaker 1 Summary
Hendry concludes that strikes by university faculty should not be permitted. This is because strikes by employees shouldn’t be permitted if they harm the employer’s customers, faculty strikes harm a university’s students. Hendry also acknowledges that most employee strikes should be legally permitted.
Speaker 2 Summary
Menkin says that if Hendry’s principle (strikes aren’t permitted if they harm the employer’s customers) is true, employee strikes should almost never be legally permitted.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. They disagree about whether most employee strikes harm the employer’s customers. We can infer that Hendry believes most do not, because he believes most strikes should be permitted. Menkin believes most strikes do hurt the customers, because he believes most strikes shouldn’t be permitted if we accept Hendry’s principle.
A
a university’s students should be considered customers of the university
Menkin doesn’t express an opinion. He doesn’t say anything concerning strikes by university faculty.
B
most employee strikes would harm the employer’s customers
This is a point of disagreement. Hendry believes most employee strikes would harm the employer’s customers. Menkin believes most would not.
C
strikes by university faculty should be legally permitted
Menkin doesn’t express an opinion. He doesn’t say anything concerning strikes by university faculty.
D
most employee strikes should be legally permitted
Menkin doesn’t express an opinion. His comment about how employee strikes should almost never be permitted is conditioned on Hendry’s principle being correct. But if Hendry’s principle is not correct, Menkin doesn’t necessarily have a view about what should be permitted.
E
faculty strikes harm a university’s students
Menkin doesn’t express an opinion. He doesn’t say anything concerning strikes by university faculty.
Summary
The author concludes that there will be more local cases of flu infection this year than there were last year. Why? Because on top of the flu strains that were present in the area last year, we have a new strain that has infected people this year.
Missing Connection
There’s a difference between the number of cases of flu infection and the number of flu strains. The premises establish that there’s a greater number of flu strains that have infected people this year compared to last year. But this doesn’t tell us that the number of infections is higher, because we might have fewer cases of various individual flu strains.
To prove that the overall number of cases is higher this year, we want to know that, for the strains of flu that were present last year, there hasn’t been a decline in the number of cases of infection. That way, the additional cases from the new strain would guarantee that the overall number of cases this year is higher than last year.
To prove that the overall number of cases is higher this year, we want to know that, for the strains of flu that were present last year, there hasn’t been a decline in the number of cases of infection. That way, the additional cases from the new strain would guarantee that the overall number of cases this year is higher than last year.
A
Effective approaches have been developed to deal with the strains of flu that were present last year.
(A) doesn’t establish anything about the number of cases of flu infection. So it doesn’t establish that the number of cases this year is higher than the number last year.
B
It is rare for new strains of flu to appear.
(B) doesn’t establish anything about the number of cases of flu infection. So it doesn’t establish that the number of cases this year is higher than the number last year.
C
The new strain of flu cannot be addressed with the approaches used to deal with the strains of flu that were present last year.
(C) doesn’t establish anything about the number of cases of flu infection. So it doesn’t establish that the number of cases this year is higher than the number last year.
D
The new strain of flu is expected to be more dangerous than the strains of flu that were present last year.
(D) doesn’t establish anything about the number of cases of flu infection. So it doesn’t establish that the number of cases this year is higher than the number last year. The danger presented by a strain does not clearly imply anything about the number of infections for that strain.
E
There will be no decline this year in the number of cases of flu infection due to strains that were present last year.
(E) establishes that the number of cases of flu infection this year due to the strains that were present last year will not go down. So if there are additional cases from the new strain, then the overall number of cases this year must be higher than last year.
Summarize Argument: Causal Explanation
The author concludes that newspapers are making a bad decision by cutting back on book reviews. The move will decrease readership by annoying regular readers while appealing to an audience who are more likely to watch TV than read newspapers.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is about whether newspapers’ decision to cut back on book reviews is wise: “Such a move is ill-advised.”
A
The newspapers should not have cut back on book reviews.
Newspapers are trying to increase readership by cutting back on book reviews, but the move will actually decrease readership. So, newspapers shouldn’t have cut back on book reviews.
B
Many newspapers have cut back on book reviews, replacing them with other features.
This is context about what newspapers have done. The author takes an opinion on whether or not this was a wise decision.
C
Focus group research concluded that features other than book reviews were of greater interest to potential readers.
The author takes no stance on whether or not this is true. Instead, she simply states that the decision to cut back on book reviews won’t have the desired effect.
D
The move to replace book reviews with other features was meant to increase readership, but it actually decreases it.
This is support for the conclusion. The move to cut back on book reviews was ill-advised because it will decrease rather than increase readership.
E
The move to replace book reviews with other features alienates loyal readers and caters to casual readers.
This supports the conclusion that the move to cut back on book reviews was ill-advised. By annoying loyal readers and catering to casual ones who’d rather watch TV, newspapers decrease their readership.
Summarize Argument
The marketing agent concludes that 90% of his clients increased their profits at least tenfold last year. He supports this by saying that 90% of his clients who made a profit last year earned at least $100,000, and none of them had earned more than $10,000 in previous years.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The marketing agent concludes that 90% of his clients increased their profit tenfold last year based only on the fact that 90% of his profitable clients did so.
This is the part-to-whole flaw. The agent assumes that what’s true of a subset of his clients applies to all of his clients. But it’s possible that only a few clients were profitable last year, and while 90% of them increased their profits tenfold, most clients didn’t profit at all.
A
overlooks the possibility that the business clients who made more than $100,000 last year made only slightly more than $100,000
This doesn’t impact the agent’s conclusion. Even if these clients made only slightly more than $100,000, they still increased their profits tenfold. Either way, he assumes that what’s true of his profitable clients is also true of all his clients.
B
fails to explain why some of the business clients who made a profit did not increase their profits at least tenfold last year
The agent doesn’t explain why 10% of his profitable clients didn’t increase their profits tenfold, but he doesn’t need to. He only addresses those clients who did increase their profits tenfold, assuming that they’re representative of all his clients.
C
draws a conclusion about all of the business clients from premises about the business clients who made a profit last year
The agent concludes that all his clients increased their profits tenfold last year based on premises about his profitable clients. But what if he only had a few profitable clients? In that case, it’s not true that 90% of his clients increased their profits tenfold.
D
treats conditions that are sufficient for making a profit as though they are necessary for making a profit
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The marketing agent doesn’t make this mistake; his argument doesn’t rely on conditional logic. Instead, he assumes that what is true of one subset of his clients is also true of all his clients.
E
overlooks the possibility that not all of the business clients made an annual profit of more than $10,000 last year
The marketing agent actually allows for this possibility. 90% of his profitable clients made $100,000, but the other 10% might have made less than $10,000. Also, the clients that were not profitable certainly made less than $10,000 because they didn't make any profit at all.