弱问，逻辑大全GMAT-TEST5-20，没看懂题

ying178 · 发表于 2012-2-29 23:10:13

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.
(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator.
答案是C。我没看懂题，求解释。谢谢！

子弹青春 · 发表于 2012-3-1 12:05:32

翻译：政府outlaw所有的strikes是一个代价昂贵的错误，这是因为所有的这些labor disputes必须通过arbitration来解决，而没有任何public sector labor settlements能够作为arbitration的指导（这句其实进一步解释了为什么arbitration会导致costly mistake）。例外：有一种strikes适合用outlaw来解决，那就是对于那些工作不能被substituted的public sector workers。（至于这里为什么这种类型的public sector workers只能用outlaw来解决，没有明确的解释，不必深究）。

question：support which conclusion。

C：
arbitration（outlaw必然导致arbitration，所以在这里可以认为arbitration=outlaw）适合那些只能靠他们自己（既 no acceptable substitute exists）来解决disputes的public service workers

C选项其实是对于原文的重复

ying178 · 发表于 2012-3-3 17:36:16

谢谢，依然似懂非懂，我再深刻理解一下。

弱问，逻辑大全GMAT-TEST5-20，没看懂题

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

浏览过的版块