Editorial: Our city's public transportation agency is facing a budget

The blue font makes a claim about what would be in the employees' best interest, jabhatta2. Not about what the union's interests are, nor about what the union should do. For example, it's possible that the union doesn't care at all about the employees' best interest, and that wouldn't undermine the editorial's conclusion.

A – variant: The union should not accept cuts in retirement benefits if doing so would not be in the employees' best interest.

Thanks so much avigutman. Interesting point above in the yellow.

I think what you are saying is

• Between the blue and the red : it doesn’t really matter what the union thinks or does | should do or should not do
• The unions thoughts / interests are MOOT in order to go from the blue to the red
• If (A – variant) was there, even (A- variant) would also be wrong

(A-variant) if anything is perhaps a strengthener

Can you try to articulate why or how (A-variant) strengthens the argument, jabhatta2?

Posted from my mobile device

Hi avigutman – to go from the red to the blue, I think you need the following necessary assumptions
(i) The author of the argument believes the union has the employee’s best interest (hence the recommendation in the blue)
(ii) Saving jobs is in the best interest for employees

I got the sense that (A-variant) strengthened Necessary Assumption (1)

Editorial: Our city's public transportation agency is facing a budget shortfall. The fastest growing part of the budget has been employee retirement benefits, which are exceptionally generous. Unless the budget shortfall is resolved, transportation service will be cut, and many transportation employees will lose their jobs. Thus, it would be in the employees' best interest for their union to accept cuts in retirement benefits.

Which of the following is an assumption the editorial's argument requires?

(A) The union should not accept cuts in retirement benefits if doing so would not be in the employees' best interest.

What necessary assumptions do you think the editor is making with regards to the union specifically ?

I would imagine there would be at-least one assumption regarding the union specifically.

I would imagine the introduction of a third entity (not the editor / not the employees) but the union would bring about at least one assumption the editors have made regarding the union specifically

If there are no assumptions w.r.t the union specifically - i dont understand what the phrase "for their union" is doing in the blue conclusion (Yellow highlight below).

Why, jabhatta2?
Which of the following is the editorial's claim, jabhatta2, in your opinion? You can choose none, one, or more than one of the following:
(a) The union should accept cuts in retirement benefits.
(b) The union's job is to do what's in the employees' best interest.
(c) If the union does accept cuts in retirement benefits, that would be in the employees' best interest.

Hi avigutman

(I) Yes, (a) is a claim by the editor

(II) Subtle difference. (b) is not a claim by the editor. However, I think (b) is in itself an hopeful assumption made by the editor when he makes the blue conclusion.

(III) Yes, (c) is a claim by the editor

Imagine that someone doesn’t see (a) being claimed by the editorial. What would you point to, jabhatta2, to convince that person. How would you prove that the editorial is claiming (a)?

Posted from my mobile device

Here's (A):
This doesn't absolutely HAVE to be true in order for the author to reach his/her conclusion. Perhaps there IS a circumstance under which it makes sense for the union to accept retirement cuts, even if it's not in the employees' best interests.

Maybe, for example, the cut in retirement benefits would directly fund some other really important project (building a new hospital or something). In this case, it's possible that the transportation union SHOULD support the cut in benefits even though it ISN'T in the best interests of the employees.

That doesn't impact the author's conclusion that it WOULD be in the best interest of the employees to accept THESE particular cuts in retirement benefits.

Because the argument doesn't depend on (A), (A) is not the correct answer.

Why include that phrase (For their union) in the conclusion, if the editor does not want or hope or expect that the union eventually proceed with the cuts in retirement benefits

TheRzS Q1 -"doing so" here is indicating "Accepting"
Q2- Negating the option A. rather warps the information or the intent of what is being said, try this
A1. The transportation employees' union should accept cuts in retirement benefits if doing so would not be in the employees' best interest- it rather now intents to say that employees should accept loss
A2. The transportation employees' union should not accept cuts in retirement benefits if doing so would be in the employees' best interest- same here, it intents to say that employees should accept loss
Therefore, it does not hurt the argument rather warps the gist of question stem
would be happy to help in case anything is still unclear

The union is mentioned in the conclusion because it has the authority to accept or reject the cuts in the retirement benefits.
The argument isn't claiming that the union will or won't or should or shouldn't do anything, jabhatta2.
The argument is merely claiming that if the union was to accept the cuts, such a move would be in the employees' best interest.
Does the author claim that the union should accept the cuts? No. Does the author claim that the union will accept the cuts? No.
Therefore, the argument doesn't depend on any assumptions about the union. The claim isn't about the union. Rather, it's about what would or wouldn't be in the employees' best interest.

I keep bringing in the intentions of the union ITSELF for some reason or the other (I don’t know).

Remember in CR - every phrase -- is critical and every phrase is placed for a reason

In fact - the moment I remove the phrase “for their union” from the argument (Screenshot below) – I THEN BELIEVE WHAT you say in the yellow bits above.

Then only I can see why (a) and (e) are irrelevant

But the phrase is there and is confusing

How would you rephrase the conclusion, in your own words, jabhatta2?