Logical reasoning PrepTest 130 · Section 4 · Question 18

Incorrect. While the grad students presumably haven't been unionized and thus you could call that a long-standing practice, the argument doesn't throw out the idea of unionization based on this history. Instead, it focuses on the lack of support.

Incorrect. The argument does raise some of the reasons that grad students oppose the union, but those reasons don't actually play into the argument's conclusion. The conclusion is just based on the percentage of grad students who oppose unionization, not why they oppose it.

Incorrect. Very tempting trap answer, especially based on our anticipations, but there are two issues here. First, the conclusion isn't that something is a bad idea—just that it shouldn't be adopted. The author of the argument might believe that unionization is a good idea, but even good ideas shouldn't be adopted if a majority of people oppose it. Second, this answer jumps over the intermediate conclusion. While it does establish that a majority of grad students are unaware of unionization attempts, it uses that as part of the argument that builds to the intermediate conclusion that a majority of people are opposed to the idea of unionization, and that is used to reach the conclusion that the students shouldn't unionize.

Incorrect. Similar to (B), the reasons for the unionization aren't important. The argument uses the percentage of people who don't support the union—whatever the reason for it—to support the conclusion, not the rationale they put forward for not supporting the unionization efforts.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Most grad students don't know of unionization attempts. Of those that do, most think the union wouldn't help them. Therefore, most grad students obviously don't want to unionize, so they shouldn't unionize.

Answer Anticipation:
Let's start with the conclusion here. It reaches a judgment about whether a group "should" unionize based on what the majority of that group wants. Should a union be rejected because a majority disapprove of unionization attempts? There's no indication in the argument that majority disapproval means a unionization attempt should be skipped, so the argument assumes this principle to be true.

Taking a step back, the argument also features an intermediate conclusion—namely, that most of the grad students "obviously" disapprove of attempts to unionize. That's based on the breakdown provided in the premises—that most who are aware of the attempt don't believe the union will work for them. However, that's a qualified majority—most "who are aware" of the unionization attempts. The premises earlier established that most of the grad students "remain unaware" of the attempt to unionize. If most are unaware of the attempt, it can't be the case that most don't want to unionize! This is a second flaw in the argument, so we need to be on the lookout for either when analyzing the answers.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice highlights the second gap we noted in our anticipation step. The intermediate conclusion, directly supporting the main point, is that most of the grad students disapprove of attempts to unionize. However, the first sentence tells us that the majority of these students "remain unaware" of unionization attempts. In order to reach the intermediate conclusion that most disapprove of the attempt to unionize, at least some of this majority group is being counted—thus blurring the line between active disapproval (as the intermediate conclusion states) and mere lack of approval (as someone unaware of attempts to unionize would provide).

Key Takeaway:
As always, quantifiers are key to a question! While this argument doesn't rely on combining quantifiers, it does require you to note when words like "majority" show up, and tracking those words as the argument develops. These are the words you should be focused on while reading an LSAT argument!