- UID
- 671388
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2011-9-13
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
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
对于C我已经看了以前的讨论帖, 已经明白,但是请问B呢? 根据原文最后一句话:只有在公务员的工作不能被替代的情况下,政府才要禁止罢工,使仲裁成为唯一的解决方法。
B选项就是倒过来讲的啊:在罢工被禁止的部门,就是(因为)这些部门的工作不能够被替代。
B为什么不对呢? 我貌似经常在这种把原文话反过来说的地方错,这种是什么错误呢? |
|