请教归纳型逻辑题一道

happyjd

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 statement above best support which of the following conclusions?

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.

为什么选这个，我从题目中没有读出这个意思来啊， 哪位牛人帮忙分析一下，怎么就得出这个结论了。。。。

georgelhb

答案就是because all its labor disputes must then be settled by binding arbitration, without any negotiated public sector labor settlements guiding the arbitrators

happyjd

谢谢您的回答，不过我还是不明白，为什么这两句话一样....

because all its labor disputes must then be settled by binding arbitration, without any negotiated public sector labor settlements guiding the arbitrators 

-->因为所有的劳动争端必须通过binding arbitration解决，没有任何negotiated public sector labor settlements来指导仲裁。对否？

题目的逻辑我没读明白，为什么上述原因能解释地方政府禁止罢工是个costly的错误。

后半句看懂了：政府应该只禁止那些服务不能被替代的员工参与罢工，意思说那些工作可以被替代的员工允许他们罢工。对否？