BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

800++ CR question

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:40 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:3 members
GMAT Score:700

800++ CR question

by sunnyjohn » Fri Jul 29, 2011 1:06 am
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.

Please provide reasoning behind your answer. Thanks.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanked: 474 times
Followed by:365 members

by VivianKerr » Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:23 am
Conclusion: No strikes for those w/o substitutes

Evidence: Labor disputes with NO strikes = settled by arbitration w/o settlements

Assumption: The cost of the settlements for the strikes for those WITH subs is LESS than the $$ lost by settling all disputes w/ NO strikes.

Question Rephrase: What can be FURTHER concluded BASED on this premise?

Prediction: See Assumption. Correct answer must relate subs/non-subs to costliness.

IMO: C

A - doesn't relate to costliness
B - Like D, this focuses on the subs/non-subs breakdown but does not relate to the $$$, or why the author is advocating a certain way of handling strikes/arbitration.
C - This correctly explains WHY arbitration is costly when strikes aren't allowed.
D - The breakdown of the subs/non-subs is irrelevant. Does not relate to the "costliness" which is the crux of the entire argument.
E - irrelevant
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"! :-)
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:38 am
Location: Hyderabad, India
Thanked: 49 times
Followed by:12 members
GMAT Score:700

by bubbliiiiiiii » Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:20 am
I was confused between B and C and finally chose B as I felt C is too extreme because of the word 'only'.
Regards,

Pranay
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 489
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:10 am
Thanked: 28 times
Followed by:5 members

by gmatblood » Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:22 am
A: Worst comparision
B: Correct
C: Extreme
D: Worst comparision again!
E: Arbitrators are workers, so does not fit in!

OA please!
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 934
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 5:16 am
Location: AAMCHI MUMBAI LOCAL
Thanked: 63 times
Followed by:14 members

by [email protected] » Mon Dec 26, 2011 3:43 am
Even I chose the answer as B. but where is the OA.
IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT

LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!

Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:49 am
Location: Delhi
Thanked: 6 times

by ranjeet75 » Mon Dec 26, 2011 6:35 am
I opted for C because B tells that no substitute is available for any type of workers. That is contrary to the premise that says that "Strikes should be outlawed only for categories of public-sector workers for whose services no acceptable substitute exists".
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:05 pm
Thanked: 26 times
Followed by:4 members

by chieftang » Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:09 pm
I'd have chosen C by process of elimination.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:03 am
Thanked: 3 times

by tracyyahoo » Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:28 pm
Why is C???

I don't get it, why is not D???

The statement clearly says that "Strikes should be outlawed only for categories of public-sector workers" why does it have anything to do with the "binding arbitration"????

Why is C?


sunnyjohn 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.

Please provide reasoning behind your answer. Thanks.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:05 pm
Thanked: 26 times
Followed by:4 members

by chieftang » Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:53 am
tracyyahoo wrote:Why is C???

I don't get it, why is not D???
How can you justify D? By my reading of the statement, we are not told how many public-sector workers have counterparts in the private sector.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:44 am
Followed by:1 members

by jarvis » Wed Dec 28, 2011 10:23 am
IMO answer is - B
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:50 pm
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??
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:05 pm
Thanked: 26 times
Followed by:4 members

by chieftang » Thu Dec 29, 2011 12:38 am
David@VeritasPrep wrote:OA is C.

Does that help??
Of course! Your thorough responses always help!

PS, You're at 999 posts. I hope you have something big planned for #1000!! ;)
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Thu Dec 29, 2011 7:24 pm
Thanks Chieftang for the encouragement...
I have just posted "The best from David Newland's first 1000 posts"
Hopefully there are some items included that you have not read!

You really made my day by noticing that I was at 999.

And now this posting is the first of my next 1000!

Happy New Year!
David
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 10:04 am
Thanked: 5 times

by apex231 » Thu Dec 29, 2011 8:32 pm
Hi David,

Though C makes sense as per your explanation, yet I am not fully convinced.

Option 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.

Won't Option C been better if it said - "Binding arbitration tends to be more advantageous/economical for government"?

Aren't we assuming that workers would be overpaid if arbitration is the means used for all public sector employees? may be workers are not overpaid and just being paid fairly if paid through arbitration.

From C, we can however, conclude that Binding arbitration tends not to be more advantageous for government as government has to pay more.

Thanks!
David@VeritasPrep wrote:OA is C.
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??
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:06 am
Actually the way that you have re-worded it would point answer choice C in the wrong direction.

Remember, we need for it to be "a costly mistake" for local government to use binding arbitration for all employees.

So the way that you have written answer choice C it would actually be False and not an inference.

It does not matter if workers are overpaid with arbitration or just paid fairly - the point is that they MUST be paid more through arbitration. That is the only way that it is "a costly mistake for the local government."

Look at the logic of it, What if workers were NOT paid more when binding arbitration is the only option? In other words, what is C is not true? In this case there is no logic for the statement that it would be a "costly mistake" for local governments.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Post new topic Post Reply