[求助]大全-5-20

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.（C）

(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator.

我怎么觉得这题看来别扭啊，为什么是C呢？谢谢

MM 参看http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=30177，我费了些气力才刨出来的

20 题, 有两个逻辑：

一、结论B：  禁止所有罢工代价高昂  （宣布所有罢工为非法代价高昂）

    原因A：  解决劳动争端的仲裁没有磋商的协议指导 [本来所有的争端都应该靠有

约束力的(binding)仲裁解决，但仲裁却没有（经磋商出来的）公共部门的劳动协议的指导]

那么：B <--- A 隐含的条件是： 有磋商性协议指导，则禁止罢工代价不高昂。

     该逻辑可以推出： 有（经磋商出来的）公共部门的劳动协议指导的仲裁，禁止公共部门的罢工代价不高昂。 因此答案为C

二、结论B： 公共部门罢工要被禁止

    原因A： 公共部门的服务无替代品 

    由B <--- A 可以推出： 服务无替代品的部门罢工要被禁止。  而（B）答案是第二个逻辑的原因的重复，不能被推出。