|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
Posts: 348
Location: Greater New York City area
Schools: Tuck, Ross (R1), Duke, Tepper, ISB (R2), Kenan Flagler (R2)
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
20
[0], given: 0
|
This one is from 1000 CR.... For a local government to [#permalink]
 07 Mar 2008, 17:41
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
This one is from 1000 CR....
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 958
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
152
[0], given: 0
|
I will go with C, as if aribitration is helping more to workers, then what is the point in making strikes illegal. As sentence says that it is costly because arbitration will take place and if arbitration helps workers then definitely it is costly. So logical conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 787
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
32
[0], given: 0
|
I have used POE to answer this.
A) Where public-service workers are permitted to strike, contract negotiations with those workers are typically settled without a strike. ***Out of scope, contract is not talked about in the argument***
(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. ***Inverted conclusion***
(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. ***Hold it***
(D) Most categories of public-sector workers have no counterparts in the private sector.***Irrelevant***
(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator. ***Premise doesn't say this***
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3596
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 231
Kudos [?]:
1300
[0], given: 346
|
I confuse with this one. I also picked C but C seems to be the assumption here and I always try to be careful to choose assumption at inference question. Any thoughts?
_________________
iOS/Android: GMAT ToolKit - The bestselling GMAT prep app | GMAT Club (free) | PrepGame | GRE ToolKit | LSAT ToolKit
PROMO: Are you an exiting GMAT ToolKit (iOS) user? Get GMAT ToolKit 2 (iOS) for only $0.99 (read more)
Math: GMAT Math Book ||| General: GMATTimer ||| Chicago Booth: Slide Presentation
The People Who Are Crazy Enough to Think They Can Change the World, Are the Ones Who Do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 1946
Schools: CBS, Kellogg
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
168
[0], given: 1
|
rgajare14 wrote: This one is from 1000 CR....
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. I spent more than 5 mins for this and I choose B, I forgot skills for MUST BE TRUE QUESTION  , I MUST REVIEW IT C (wrong for me) because the text does not support " MORE DANGEROUS"
_________________
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 215
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
I went with B here. I thought that B laid out the point that binding arbitration was not an acceptable form of arbitration. Acceptable seems a little harsh though. It is a hard choice between B and C. B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
