GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 22 Jun 2018, 06:05

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 225
For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2009, 09:52
1
4
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

43% (02:21) correct 57% (02:12) wrong based on 692 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Posts: 201
Schools: RD 2: Darden Class of 2012

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2009, 12:58
IMO C -

It is hard to distinguish between Facts and Claims here.

"No permission strike leads to arbitration" is a fact.
"Arbitration is a costly process" sounds more like a claim to me but I am going to assume it is also a fact.

(A) Where public-service workers are permitted to strike, contract negotiations with those workers are typically settled without a strike. - Not inferrable as only public sector workers not allowed to strike are discussed

(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. - The argument is that only workers with non acceptable substitutes should not be allowed to strike. The author is making the divsion that their are two groups here so we cannot assume all categories.

(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. - this is true as the author is suggesting the government avoid arbitration as it is a costly mistake.

(D) Most categories of public-sector workers have no counterparts in the private sector. - Out of scope. No discussion of private sector.

(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator. - on the contrary striking workers do not need an arbitrator. It is non striking that need one.
Intern
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 46

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2009, 14:11
B seems to be correct. According to the stimulus, essential services should be banned from strikes since they have no substitutes. So, if all services are banned from striking, they must not have substitutes.
C is not true. Arbitration being costly for Govt. doesn't mean that it is advantageous to workers.
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 317

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2009, 20:10
1
Qu: which conclusion is best supported?

(A) Where public-service workers are permitted to strike, contract negotiations with those workers are typically settled without a strike. - Stimulus states that public-service workers cant strike so irrelevant. [OUT]

(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. - Restates the last sentence of the stimulus, covering a part of the stimulus. [OUT]

(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. - Can be concluded: since public-service workers are not permitted to strike, arbitration is the only means to resolve disputes for them. And, in this case, negotiated public-sector labor settlements will guide the arbitrators.

(D) Most categories of public-sector workers have no counterparts in the private sector. -Irrelevant [OUT]

(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator. - Since public-service workers are not permitted to strike, arbitration can help to settle. [OUT]
Manager
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 225

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2009, 05:32
Thanks all for participation!! OA is 'B'

According to me the only way to reason out the answer is through POE, otherwise I am unable to reason it out.. The logic is still not clear..
Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 70
For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2011, 22:50
7
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.
Manager
Joined: 24 Nov 2010
Posts: 184
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Ross '15, Duke '15

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2011, 23:42
Conditional Conclusion is OutlawStrike --> NoSubAvail

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. no evidence of this in the statements above
(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. mistaken reversal
(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.no evidence of this in the statements
(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator. again there is nothing in the statements above that suggests this to be true
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 800

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2011, 01:31
I think even C is not the answer. We cannot conclude "more advantageous".

E - we cannot conclude "unlikely".

I overshot the 2 mins lap - oscillating between the two and found question is not worth the effort.
Manager
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 78

### Show Tags

12 Mar 2011, 08:05
gmat1220 wrote:
I think even C is not the answer. We cannot conclude "more advantageous".

E - we cannot conclude "unlikely".

I overshot the 2 mins lap - oscillating between the two and found question is not worth the effort.

C and E could be the answers for me. i chose E but dont know why C is the answer...
E says " A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator". This means that a strike by workers in a local government is likely to be settled with help from an arbitrator/
you know negative + negative = positive... so E could be posible... because its what the text used to prove its conclusion.
the problem is why C is better than E?
Manager
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 90
WE: Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Dec 2015, 22:39
Premise 1- If gov outlaw all strikes labor disputes can be settled by binding arbitration(only choice) without any negotiated public-sector labor settlements guiding the arbitrators

Premise 2-Strikes should be settled in public sector because if they strike their services cannot be substituted by any other.

As per premise 1 all workers(including public sector) should be allowed to strike in-order to solve their problem(else it is a costly mistake).So the public sector should have some other way to solve their problem. This logical gap is closed by C,which says arbitration is the best choice for them.

(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.
Intern
Status: Studying
Joined: 18 Jan 2012
Posts: 9
Work: Manager
For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2016, 03:08
This is a really good question! Two reasons:
a) Subtle wording in the question stem -- "must then be settled"
b) The answer choices can misguide you when you're in a hurry

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.
--> INCORRECT. This is a general statement about all public-service workers. We are not told what happens when all public-service workers strike, we are only told about what happens when all strikes are outlawed, in which case the course of action is arbitration ("because all its labor disputes must then be settled by binding arbitration").

(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. --> INCORRECT. This answer has verbs in the present tense. The passage only suggests what should be done, not what is currently happening ("Strikes should be outlawed only for categories of public-sector workers for whose services no acceptable substitute exists")

(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. --> Note the artful use of language in this answer choice. Understandably, in cases where there are no substitutes/alternative ways to resolve the dispute, binding arbitration is the most advantageous way and therefore, the more advantageous route. CORRECT.

(D) Most categories of public-sector workers have no counterparts in the private sector. --> INCORRECT. We have no information about the private sector. The information in the argument only deals with the public sector.

(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator. --> INCORRECT. We do not have information about the likelihood of using help from an arbitrator for settling a strike.

--------------------------------

KUDOS if you like this post!
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Apr 2013
Posts: 288
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
Schools: Simon '20
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V41
GPA: 3
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2016, 00:57
+1 for C. We have to find a conclusion..or in other words a must be true answer. B is something that is both irrelevant and is something that can SUPPORT the conclusion..not a conclusion in itself as it is out of scope. Whats the source?
_________________

Spread some love..Like = +1 Kudos

Senior Manager
Joined: 27 May 2012
Posts: 484
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 May 2017, 08:52
abhi758 wrote:
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.

In case any body comes across this thread. Please note OA is C NOT B

https://gmatclub.com/forum/for-a-local- ... fl=similar
_________________

- Stne

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Apr 2013
Posts: 288
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
Schools: Simon '20
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V41
GPA: 3
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2017, 07:39
fanatico wrote:
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.

Okay. First, the language of the question is really hard. I don't know whether everybody knows binding arbitration and what not. I think that GMAT assumes no outside knowledge for questions. I would like experts to comment on this. IanStewart mikemcgarry please see this.

second, I think that people are rejecting option B for all the wrong reasons. I'm not saying that its not wrong, it is, but the reason for rejecting this lies in subtlety of the words in it. My answer is B. I chose it after doing elimination. My last contenders were B and C.

Let me rewrite the stimulus and option B with highlighted words that make all the difference.

Stimulus

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.

Option B

(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.

This option makes a mistake in categorization. The stimulus states..

Strikes should be outlawed only for categories of public-sector workers for whose services no acceptable substitute exists.. Its talking about the categories of workers whose services are irreplaceable.

The options states..

(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.

The options talks about "every worker" not "category of those workers". This would mean the following situation..

Let's say that there is a dept. of landmarks construction, and it has 100 employed workers. Now, if the service of any of these 100 workers is irreplaceable, then the govt. cannot outlaw strikes by the whole dept.
This clearly is not what the stimulus means.

This question took a lot of time. Experts, is this a GMAT like question?
_________________

Spread some love..Like = +1 Kudos

GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1345
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2017, 08:13
2
I'm not sure where it's from (it's from one of those old 1000 series documents with questions from various sources), but it might be an LSAT question.

You don't need to know exactly what "binding arbitration" means here. You just need to know: they can settle things by one method (strikes and negotiations) or by another method (arbitration). It's not important what those methods actually are.

The argument's conclusion is: governments should only ban strikes for essential workers. We know, from this, nothing factual about what governments actually do in practice. So an answer like B could never be right, because it talks about the situations, in practice, in which governments actually do ban strikes.

There's one crucial word in the stem that is the key to the problem: "to outlaw all strikes ... is a costly mistake". The question is subtle because it really comes down to that one word. The argument goes on to say: if strikes are outlawed, disputes are settled in arbitration. If that is "costly", then it must be true that the government loses money when disputes are settled in arbitration. That's why C is right.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Apr 2013
Posts: 288
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
Schools: Simon '20
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V41
GPA: 3
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2017, 09:15
IanStewart

Thankyou for your prompt reply. Can something this complex be expected on the GMAT? this question is really scary. And please also comment on my reasoning provided in my post above.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Spread some love..Like = +1 Kudos

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 703
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2017, 07:53
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2017
Posts: 361
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Sep 2017, 14:31
1
Yes it is really scary. But what a question! Took me 5 minutes
Got stuck between B and C as they said different things, but in really complex ways:

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?

(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. - This can be inferred, because outlawing strikes would be helpful only IF workers cannot be substituted - basically the workers would be committing a crime by striking. However this is not the conclusion. The conclusion is on arbitration
(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.Yes since stopping it by govt is a 'costly mistake' - if you stop this you cannot arbitrate 'bindingly', and hence not reap the advantages
Manager
Joined: 14 May 2017
Posts: 67
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2018, 06:59
C is the best choice. No doubt. But is E wrong because of the possibility that the categories without any acceptable substitutes can have disputes settled without arbitration ?

Anyone ?
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers   [#permalink] 18 Jan 2018, 06:59
Display posts from previous: Sort by