Nordecki: If pay is the issue, I must disagree. The average annual salary of the striking workers at Ergon Foods is over $29,000.
Speaker 1 Summary
Goswami supports the striking workers at Ergon Foods. This is because she thinks the amount they are paid (most make less than $20,000 per year) is too low.
Speaker 2 Summary
Nordecki concludes that if the strike is about pay, he does not support the strike. This is because the average annual salary of the striking workers is above $29,000.
Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether the striking workers are underpaid. Goswami thinks they are. Nordecki thinks they aren’t.
A
The average annual salary at Ergon Foods is over $29,000.
Goswami doesn’t express an opinion. She says most earn less than $20,000, but that doesn’t allow us to infer what she believes about the average salary of Ergon Foods workers. The average could be higher than $29,000 or lower, even if most earn less than $20,000.
B
Pay is the primary issue over which the workers are striking at Ergon Foods.
Neither expresses an opinion about this. Although you might think the workers are striking over pay, neither speaker describes the cause of the strike.
C
It is reasonable to support striking workers who are underpaid.
Not a point of disagreement. Nordecki believes the Ergon workers are not underpaid. But we don’t know whether he would support their strike if they were underpaid. You might think he implicitly supports strikes from underpaid workers, in which case he agrees with Goswami.
D
The striking workers at Ergon Foods are underpaid.
This is a point of disagreement. Goswami believes they are underpaid. We can infer that Nordecki does not, because he says that he disagrees with the strike if pay is the issue underlying the strike.
E
It was unreasonable for the workers at Ergon Foods to go on strike.
Nordecki doesn’t express an opinion. He disagrees with the strike if it is based on pay. But it might be based on a different reason, in which case we don’t know whether Nordecki might support the strike.
Proponent of offshore oil drilling: Don’t be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.
Summarize Argument
The drilling proponent implicitly claims the opponent offers poor support when she claims new offshore wells aren’t worth the risk. He supports his criticism with an analogy: like farms, he argues, new wells shouldn’t be considered too risky just because each one makes a small contribution to the country’s overall consumption.
Notable Assumptions
The drilling proponent assumes that a new well and a new farm carry roughly equal risk, and that a new well makes at least as big a contribution to the country’s oil needs as a new farm makes to its food needs.
A
New farms do not involve a risk analogous to that run by new offshore oil drilling.
This challenges the analogy drawn by the drilling proponent. New wells and new farms demand dissimilar cost-benefit calculations if they carry dissimilar risks while contributing similarly small amounts to the overall output of their products.
B
Many of the largest oil deposits are located under land that is unsuitable for farming.
The drilling proponent does not advocate that the same land be used for farming and drilling—he simply draws an analogy between the two practices.
C
Unlike oil, common agricultural products fulfill nutritional needs rather than fuel requirements.
This dissimilarity does not damage the drilling proponent’s analogy, which requires only that nutritional needs and fuel requirements be similarly large—not that they be fulfilled by the same product.
D
Legislation governing new oil drilling has been much more thoroughly articulated than has that governing new farms.
This isn’t relevant to the drilling proponent’s argument, which doesn’t cite the legality or regulatory ease of either farming or drilling.
E
The country under discussion imports a higher proportion of the farm products it needs than it does of the oil it needs.
This doesn’t damage the analogy drawn by the drilling proponent. New farms may still contribute a very small proportion to the overall nutritional needs of that country, even if it imports lots of food.
Proponent of offshore oil drilling: Don’t be ridiculous! You might just as well argue that new farms should not be allowed, since no new farm could supply the total food needs of our country for more than a few minutes.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
In response to the drilling opponent’s claim that the benefits of drilling new oil wells are not worth the risks, the drilling proponent states that this claim is ridiculous. as evidence, the proponent points out that a similar conclusion can be made about new farms. New farms should not be allowed because no new farm can satisfy our country’s food needs for more than a few minutes.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The drilling proponent counters the position held by the drilling opponent. He does this by presenting an analogous argument with an obviously absurd conclusion.
A
offering evidence in support of drilling that is more decisive than is the evidence offered by the drilling opponent
The drilling proponent does not offer any evidence in support of drilling. The proponent’s argument focuses on the reasoning of the opponent’s claims.
B
claiming that the statistics cited as evidence by the drilling opponent are factually inaccurate
The proponent does not claim that the opponent’s cited statistics are inaccurate.
C
pointing out that the drilling opponent’s argument is a misapplication of a frequently legitimate way of arguing
The drilling proponent does not point out a misapplication of the drilling opponent’s argument. The proponent presents an analogous argument to demonstrate the opponent’s faulty reasoning.
D
citing as parallel to the argument made by the drilling opponent an argument in which the conclusion is strikingly unsupported
The parallel argument is the drilling proponent’s example of not allowing new farms. The conclusion is absurd in the same way the drilling opponent’s conclusion is absurd.
E
proposing a conclusion that is more strongly supported by the drilling opponent’s evidence than is the conclusion offered by the drilling opponent
The drilling proponent does not propose a different conclusion. The proponent’s argument does not address whether new oil wells should be allowed.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the Chefs’ Union has requested raises of a greater dollar amount than the raises requested by the Hotel Managers’ Union. This is because the Chefs’ Union has requested a 10% salary raise, while the Hotel Managers’ Union has requested an 8% salary raise.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that members of the Chefs’ Union currently make either almost as much, as much, or more than members of the Hotel Managers’ Union. Suppose chefs made $90,000 and hotel managers made $100,000. Their requested raises would add $9,000 and $8,000 to their respective salaries.
A
The Chefs’ Union has many more members than does the Hotel Managers’ Union.
We don’t care how many members these unions have. We care about how much their requested raises would add to their salaries.
B
The Chefs’ Union is a more powerful union than is the Hotel Managers’ Union and is therefore more likely to obtain the salary increases it requests.
We don’t care what’s likely to happen. We’re interested in the dollar amount the raises would add.
C
The current salaries of the members of the Chefs’ Union are, on average, higher than the current salaries of the members of the Hotel Managers’ Union.
Members of the Chefs’ Union already make more than members of the Hotel Managers’ Union. If chefs make $110,000 and hotel managers make $100,000, then the requested raises would add $11,000 to chefs’ salaries and $8,000 to hotel managers’ salaries.
D
The average dollar amount of the raises that the members of the Chefs’ Union received last year was equal to the average dollar amount of the raises that the members of the Hotel Managers’ Union received.
We don’t care about last years’ raises.
E
The members of the Chefs’ Union received salary increases of 10 percent in each of the last two years, while the members of the Hotel Managers’ Union received salary increases of only 8 percent in each of the last two years.
We don’t care about last years’ raises, nor the year before that. We only care about the dollar value of the raises requested this year.