Politician: Union leaders argue that increases in multinational control of manufacturing have shifted labor to nation...
@MichaelaJOctober 13, 2023
Why would D be incorrect.
Hello-
I am not understanding why D would not be correct.
In my assumption, I would think that there would be other reasons why union workers would argue against increases in multinational control of manufacturing (ex: Wanting to keep their jobs, better protection for their subordinates, keep manufacturing local, etc)
Not just because they want to keep their high wages.
Wouldn't the flaw be that the argument is assuming that if you are a union leader the only reason you are fighting against multinational control is because you want to keep your high wages but in reality, they might be opposing it for other reasons.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Those are absolutely other things that might be and likely are motivating the union leaders. However, those are not the arguments that the politician is addressing here. The politician is directly attacking them on their argument for keeping wages high. The fact that we could replace the words "high wages" with "job security" or "safe working conditions" isn't really relevant because we need to engage with the argument the politician is making, not those of the hypothetical labor leaders.
The politician dismissed the unions claim on the ground that their claim supports their interest. This is of course a terrible argument. It doesn't actually engage with the argument of the union at all, rather, it dismissed them out of hand simply because they are a union. Furthermore the pol never actually assumed this is the only reason for fighting multinational control. The pol is simply choosing to address one motivation but never closes off the possibility of other motivations.
@MichaelaJOctober 14, 2023
I am still not understanding.
Emil-KunkinOctober 15, 2023
I think a shorter way to say it is that the politician never actually makes the assumption that union leaders are only fighting for higher wages. The politician says that unions are fighting for higher wages, and then uses that as the basis for his argument. This isn't the same thing as saying that's the only thing they are fighting for. It's completely possible that the unions are fighting for other things, but the politician chooses to engage with this one argument the unions are making. The flaw here is that he dismisses the argument on the basis of who is making it.
