Passage Summary: The author challenges a newspaper's claim that fewer strikes mean weaker unions by arguing that strikes are actually a sign of weakness, meaning fewer strikes could imply the opposite.

Conclusion: The newspaper's argument about declining union strength is incorrect.

Reasoning: The author argues that strikes indicate weakness rather than strength, so a decrease in strikes does not imply a decrease in power.

Analysis: The author employs a strategy of reinterpretation. The newspaper takes a fact—the decrease in strikes—and uses it as evidence of weakness. The author accepts the fact but argues that the newspaper has the relationship backward: strikes are a symptom of weakness, not a measure of strength. By providing an alternative explanation for the evidence, the author suggests that the same data could actually support a conclusion opposite to the one the newspaper reached. Focus on how the author flips the significance of the evidence provided.