ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 4890|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

CXD逻辑33,N哥请进!

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2010-2-20 16:40:36 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
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.

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

用上面的推理怎么选C。虽然没有单词不认识,但还是读不懂题目和选项,用简单的推理却能推出正确答案来,真神奇
收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2010-2-20 17:22:28 | 只看该作者
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.
题目中只是说由于 whose services no acceptable substitute exists,所以不能罢工,并不代表罢工对公共服务工人不好

(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.
文中说的是categories of public-sector workers,不是all categories of pubic-sector workers

(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.
文中只提到两种解决方法,罢工和仲裁,既然罢工已经被排除,仲裁就是比较好的。

(D) Most categories of public-sector workers have no counterparts in the private sector.
这句话是重述原文,不是结论

(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from
an arbitrator.
和原文不符:because all
its labor disputes must then be settled by binding arbitration, without any negotiated
public-sector labor settlements guiding the arbitrators.



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

用上面的推理怎么选C。虽然没有单词不认识,但还是读不懂题目和选项,用简单的推理却能推出正确答案来,真神奇
-- by 会员 gedn01 (2010/2/20 16:40:36)
板凳
发表于 2010-3-8 15:03:59 | 只看该作者
谁能把题目翻译一下啊,读得有点费解啊
地板
发表于 2013-5-17 10:45:53 | 只看该作者
这里有一个manhattan的解释,但是我还是不太明白http://gmatclub.com/forum/for-a-local-government-to-outlaw-all-strikes-by-its-workers-89356.html
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-29 19:16
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部