Passage Summary: David believes companies need to be allowed to hire permanent replacements during a strike to keep things fair. Lin argues that hiring temporary workers is enough to give companies the power they need.

Reasoning: David argues that banning permanent replacements for strikers is unfair because it strips companies of leverage; Lin counters that temporary replacements provide sufficient leverage.

Analysis: This exchange centers on a disagreement over what constitutes 'sufficient leverage' in a labor dispute. David assumes that without the threat of permanent replacement, a company is at a disadvantage, while Lin believes the disadvantage is mitigated by temporary hires. To find the most supported statement, look for an option that identifies this specific point of contention regarding whether temporary replacements are an adequate substitute for permanent ones in negotiations. It is a classic 'point at issue' setup disguised as a support question.