Passage Summary: Hendry thinks teachers shouldn't strike because it hurts students, citing a rule about not harming customers. Menkin points out that if we actually followed that rule, almost every strike would be banned.

Conclusion: Hendry concludes that faculty strikes should be an exception to the general rule that most strikes should be legally permitted.

Reasoning: Hendry argues that strikes should be illegal if they harm customers, and faculty strikes harm students. Menkin counters that if this principle were true, almost no strikes would be legal.

Analysis: The disagreement here is a classic clash over the application of a principle. Hendry wants to keep the 'most strikes are legal' rule while using a 'harm to customers' exception to ban faculty strikes. Menkin uses a 'reduction ad absurdum' strategy, suggesting that Hendry's exception is so broad it would swallow the rule itself. To find the point at issue, apply the Agree/Disagree test: Hendry agrees that most strikes should be legal, while Menkin's logic suggests that, under Hendry's own criteria, they should not be.