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

Redeem

public-sector labor

Expert replies
by gmatmachoman » Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:11 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.

I am Over C Vs E
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by komal » Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:32 am
gmatmachoman 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.
Incorrect : Contract negotiations will not necessarily settle disputes of all categories of public sector workers.

(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.
Incorrect : Premise states that strikes should be outlawed only for those sectors where no acceptable substitutes exist.

(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.
Correct : It rightly follows the premises.

(D) Most categories of public-sector workers have no counterparts in the private sector.
Incorrect : Clearly out of scope

(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator.
Incorrect : It disputes with what is stated in the premise.
Join the discussion

by vijay_venky » Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:22 am
Option A would have been closer if it had sported other means than arbitration, but it just mentioned about just the strike. As we do not know whether they could be solved with strike or any other method we are not in a position to chose this.

But to me option C is the winner.

To me it looks more like an inference question.
Join the discussion

by mehravikas » Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:12 pm
C seems to be the best bet here.
Join the discussion

by pkw209 » Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:03 pm
I guess C.

Official answer?
Join the discussion

by vscid » Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:00 pm
Binding arbitration would be actually beneficial for the workers.
Hence C.

Good question!:)
The GMAT is indeed adaptable. Whenever I answer RC, it proficiently 'adapts' itself to mark my 'right' answer 'wrong'.
Join the discussion