Many thanks David, for this crystal clear explanation and for several other posts.
David@VeritasPrep wrote:OA is C.
I did some research and this appears to be from 1000CR. Not my favorite source.
By the way, what a subject line! I am not sure this is an "800 ++ CR question."
This is an inference question, but it is a bit unusual because it already has a conclusion. We can still apply the same techniques that we normally would for an inference question -- namely process of elimination - and, because we have a conclusion here we can point to the "hidden truth" on this inference question. A "hidden truth" is like an assumption answer and it can usually be found on an inference question that has a conclusion.
So what is the hidden truth? Start with the conclusion, which states "Strikes should be outlawed only for categories of public-sector workers for whose services no acceptable substitute exists" and should not be outlawed for other categories of public service workers.
So why not outlaw strikes for all workers? The premise is that to outlaw strikes for all workers is costly because it would result in disputes being "settled by binding arbitration, without any negotiated public-sector labor settlements guiding the arbitrators." In other words, if there are no strikes that end with a negotiated agreement - like when the auto workers negotiate a new contract with Ford or GM - then there is no guidance for the arbitrator to go by and this means that the arbitrator might give too much to the workers and THAT is costly for the local government.
If, on the other hand, the onlyworkers prohibited from striking are those that are irreplaceable, like police and firefighters, then the other categories - like bus drivers or office workers, can negotiate a settlement and this can then serve to guide arbitrators when they make their decisions in the cases of the police, firefighters, etc. who are not allowed to go on strike. So by allowing the bus drivers and office workers to strike the government saves on those contracts as compared to arbitration and then saves on the contracts that have to go to arbitration - the police, firefighters, etc.
Anyway, now that we fully understand the question we can see that in order for both the premise and conclusion to be true there is a "hidden truth" that the workers would be overpaid if arbitration is the means used for all public sector employees. This is the only way that the local government would be making a "costly mistake." Choice C lines up exactly with our hidden truth.
Does that help??
-- Santhosh S
