Introduction / Context:
This statement presents a conditional threat meant to pressure the union to end a strike. We must identify which assumptions are necessary for the threat to be a rational negotiating tactic.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Management says: “Call off strike immediately; otherwise we will close the factory.”
- Assumption I: There is truly no alternative other than closure.
- Assumption II: The threat is expected to influence the union's decision.
Concept / Approach:
For a threat to be issued as leverage, it must be assumed that it will produce pressure—that is the purpose of stating it. However, it need not be the case that closure is literally the only remaining option; management can threaten closure even if other (less preferred) options exist, to shift bargaining power.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Check II: If the threat could have no effect, there would be no point in making it. Hence II is implicit.Check I: “No other alternative” is an extremely strong claim that is not necessary; a threat can be strategic rather than the absolute last resort. Therefore I is not implicit.
Verification / Alternative check:
Negotiation theory shows threats are used to shape incentives even when multiple alternatives exist. Thus only II is required for the statement to make sense.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I-only (option a) overlooks the essential persuasive function of the threat.Either (option c) and Both (option e) incorrectly include the extreme necessity claim in I.Neither (option d) ignores that II must hold.
Common Pitfalls:
Treating strategic statements as admissions of “no alternative” rather than as bargaining tools.
Final Answer:
Only assumption II is implicit
Discussion & Comments