Critical Reasoning

For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costly mistake, because all its labor disputes must then be settled by binding arbitration, without any negotiated public-sector labor settlements guiding the arbitrators. Strikes should be outlawed only for categories of public-sector workers for whose services no acceptable substitute exists.

The statements above best support which of the following conclusions?

(A) Where public-service workers are permitted to strike, contract negotiations with those workers are typically settled without a strike.
(B) Where strikes by all categories of pubic-sector workers are outlawed, no acceptable substitutes for the services provided by any of those workers are available.
(C) Binding arbitration tends to be more advantageous for public-service workers where it is the only available means of settling labor disputes with such workers.
(D) Most categories of public-sector workers have no counterparts in the private sector.
(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator.

[spoiler]C and E could be the answers for me. i chose E but dont know why C is the answer...
E says " A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator". This means that a strike by workers in a local government is likely to be settled with help from an arbitrator/
you know negative + negative = positive... so E could be posible... because its what the text used to prove its conclusion.
the problem is why C is better than E?[/spoiler]

I guess, it's all about the context - legal wiz would opt answer choice C for knowing that a local government is not responsible for courts. Thus the only way, employee strikes would be costly for the local government is when the businesses stop and tax dues are slowed.

diebeatsthegmat wrote:For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costly mistake, because all its labor disputes must then be settled by binding arbitration, without any negotiated public-sector labor settlements guiding the arbitrators. Strikes should be outlawed only for categories of public-sector workers for whose services no acceptable substitute exists.

The statements above best support which of the following conclusions?

(A) Where public-service workers are permitted to strike, contract negotiations with those workers are typically settled without a strike.
(B) Where strikes by all categories of pubic-sector workers are outlawed, no acceptable substitutes for the services provided by any of those workers are available.
(C) Binding arbitration tends to be more advantageous for public-service workers where it is the only available means of settling labor disputes with such workers.
(D) Most categories of public-sector workers have no counterparts in the private sector.
(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator.

[spoiler]C and E could be the answers for me. i chose E but dont know why C is the answer...
E says " A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator". This means that a strike by workers in a local government is likely to be settled with help from an arbitrator/
you know negative + negative = positive... so E could be posible... because its what the text used to prove its conclusion.
the problem is why C is better than E?[/spoiler]