求解一道逻辑题

wwc008love

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?
A  Where public-service workers are permitted to strike,contract negotiations with those workers are typically settle without a strike
B  Where strikes by all categories of public-secot 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 categries 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 and arbitrator.
 愣是没看懂原文的逻辑关系。。。求解释谢谢

sdcar2010

Premises:
1) Neogotiated public-sector labor settlements can be used to settle labor disputes during binding arbitration.
2) Because arbitration for labor dispute is required when strikes are outlawed, it is a costly mistake for the government to outlaw strikes by non-public sector workers.
2) Strikes should be outlawed only for public-sector workers, since their services cannot be replaced.

The prompt asks for a valid conclusion based on the stimulus, more like an inference question. The correct answer has to follow the statements made in the stimulus.

C does just that based on premises 1 and 2.