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
public-sector labor
This topic has expert replies
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 2326
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
- Thanked: 173 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
- komal
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 777
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
- Location: Mumbai, India
- Thanked: 117 times
- Followed by:47 members
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.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:18 pm
- Location: Hyderabad
- Thanked: 12 times
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.
But to me option C is the winner.
To me it looks more like an inference question.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
- Location: Sydney
- Thanked: 23 times
- Followed by:1 members
Binding arbitration would be actually beneficial for the workers.
Hence C.
Good question!:)
Hence C.
Good question!:)
The GMAT is indeed adaptable. Whenever I answer RC, it proficiently 'adapts' itself to mark my 'right' answer 'wrong'.