(If I am totally wrong, please let me know. If I didn't answer any of the prompts, let me know that too)

Tocqueville's argument is interesting to me, but it is not as sound as he thinks it is.  In his essay, he explains that the industrial work environment creates aristocracy, and how the almost unbridled proliferation of industry through democracy causes democracy to, in actuality, lead back to the very thing it is designed to eliminate: aristocracy.  This makes sense.  However, his argument takes something of a wrong turn when he claims that there is no connection between the poor and the rich.  It is very true that, in the society he describes, there is practically no connection between the worker and the master.  Each could go his separate way and no harm would be done to either.  The worker can find another job; the master can find another worker.  This is actually the downfall of Tocqueville's entire line of reasoning.  Democracy does not necessarily grant equal opportunity, it only guarantees equal rights.  It would not matter what society ones lives in, there will always be rich and there will always be poor.  It is almost as simple as natural selection.  Some are born into money, some are not.  Some make loads of money, some do not.  No matter where one was to go on the third rock from the sun, this is a true statement, and no amount of democracy is going to change that.  Democracy grants both the poor man and the rich man equal political rights.  If the democracy functions correctly, no amount of money is going to change their ability to vote, bear arms, etc. (I use American rights because they are rather important to this essay).  Therefore, the rich master and the poor worker both have the same rights and, because they are not bound to each other in some sort of "industrial slavery," there is no true aristocracy.  The worker only answers to his master because his master pays him, no more, no less, as even Tocqueville himself will attest to.
Now, one could argue that simply because the worker answers to the master and has almost no way of becoming a master himself, that it is an aristocracy.  But it is almost impossible for an industry to be truly productive or even functional without an overseer.  Furthermore, this worker is likely producing a good that his comrades, additional workers in other industries or even he himself needs to survive and thrive.  While his work is benefiting the master, it is also directly benefiting the worker himself and his fellow men, his brother workers.
In conclusion, the worker and the master do not have equal opportunity.  This fact is virtually inescapable.  Tocqueville's concern with it is valid, but it is not an issue that is easily fixed.  But his true issue seems to be with democracy.  Truly, the master and the worker have equal political rights, and he himself said that neither is bound to the other, so democracy is not the culprit, and industry does not create an undeniable aristocracy.  It is really a matter of natural selection.