NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 14:44 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 14:44
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
wild_desperado
Manager
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 76
Own Kudos [?]: 281 [66]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink] New post   17 Jun 2005, 04:33
2
Kudos
63
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

45% (02:27) correct 55% (02:33) wrong based on 1322 sessions
Hide Show 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.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
TommyWallach
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Posts: 323
Own Kudos [?]: 7018 [18]
Given Kudos: 11
Location: San Francisco
Concentration: Journalism
 Q47  V47 GMAT 2: 770  Q49  V48
Send PM
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink] New post   24 Jan 2010, 14:50
14
Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Hey All,

Hopefully I can help with this one. The passage itself uses a lot of confusing verbiage to make you think it's very technical, but the reality is pretty straightforward. One can go at it from a draw a conclusion standpoint, but it functions weirdly well as a straightforward find the assumption question:

Conclusion: Gov't should only outlaw strikes when nobody else can do the work.

Premises: Without strikes, disputes settled by binding arbitration. This is a costly mistake.

The question we have to ask is WHY is this a costly mistake? Only one thing would explain it.

Assumption: Binding arbitration is good for the workers/bad for the gov't. (i.e. gov't loses more $ on this kind of dispute).

(A) Where public-service workers are permitted to strike, contract negotiations with those workers are typically settled without a strike.
Problem: The question here is about whether strikes can be bad for government, not whether or not they happen.

(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.
Problem: This is what the conclusion recommends, but it doesn't help us understand why.

(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.
Answer: Aha. Now we're told that binding arbitration tends to help out the worker bees. Interesting.

(D) Most categories of public-sector workers have no counterparts in the private sector.
Problem: We don't care about the private sector, or really whether or not "most" categories have counterparts elsewhere.

(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator.
Problem: That wasn't the question. The question is whether it's better to do it through binding arbitration (which is what you get without a strike), or the type of arbitration you get after a strike (which conforms to precedent).

Hope that helps!

Tommy Wallach
General Discussion
User avatar
remgeo
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 267
Own Kudos [?]: 38 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: London
Send PM
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink] New post   06 Apr 2006, 07:44
The OA is C.

It is not B because

The conclusion of the passage is that
Strikes should be outlawed only for categories of public-sector workers for whose services no acceptable substitute exists.

But B says that
(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.

Hence it does not support the conclusion.
User avatar
hogann
Manager
Manager
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Posts: 117
Own Kudos [?]: 1262 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Concentration: Finance
Schools:RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
 Q49  V35
Send PM
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink] New post   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.
User avatar
boeinz
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 228
Own Kudos [?]: 1264 [2]
Given Kudos: 32
Send PM
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink] New post   27 Aug 2009, 20:10
2
Kudos
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]
User avatar
ykaiim
Director
Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 520
Own Kudos [?]: 5420 [2]
Given Kudos: 40
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Send PM
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink] New post   24 Apr 2010, 05:19
2
Kudos
IMO C.

In the stimulus, it is mentioned that when public-service workers prohibited from strikes then their DISPUTES must be settled by binding arbitration. This is what mentioned in C but in a different way:

(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.

I think the last sentence of the stimulus just distracts our reasoning by emphasising on to exclude some crucial public-services from outlaws.

SudiptoGmat 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.
User avatar
TommyWallach
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Posts: 323
Own Kudos [?]: 7018 [2]
Given Kudos: 11
Location: San Francisco
Concentration: Journalism
 Q47  V47 GMAT 2: 770  Q49  V48
Send PM
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink] New post   18 Sep 2010, 13:17
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
Hey All,

I got PM'd about this one by Mathew, who wrote:

Tommy,

The question stem reads "The statements above best support which of the following conclusions?" which means this is an inference statement, am I right? And not a assumption question as stated by you. Please clarify as I don't understand the question stem. Thanks.


You may notice I say it's worded as a "draw a conclusion" question (that's what we call "inference" questions at manhattanGMAT), but ODDLY, you can get to the answer just by doing it as an assumption question. I actually think it's miswritten...though I don't know where it's from. I would view "strikes should be outlawed" as a very straight-forward stated conclusion. Draw a conclusion/inference questions SHOULD NOT have conclusions in the passage.

-t
User avatar
dreambeliever
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Nov 2010
Posts: 119
Own Kudos [?]: 247 [0]
Given Kudos: 7
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Duke '15 Ross '15
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink] New post   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
User avatar
gmatPro88
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Jan 2012
Status:Studying
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
Work: Manager
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink] New post   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!
User avatar
G
ShashankDave
Manager
Manager
Joined: 03 Apr 2013
Posts: 222
Own Kudos [?]: 239 [0]
Given Kudos: 872
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
Schools: McDonough '21 (A) Kelley '21 ISB '21 (I)
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V41
GPA: 3
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink] New post   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?
User avatar
L
IanStewart
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 4128
Own Kudos [?]: 9239 [4]
Given Kudos: 91
 Q51  V47
Send PM
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink] New post   25 Jul 2017, 08:13
4
Kudos
Expert Reply
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.
User avatar
G
Madhavi1990
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jan 2017
Posts: 259
Own Kudos [?]: 85 [1]
Given Kudos: 932
Send PM
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink] New post   09 Sep 2017, 14:31
1
Bookmarks
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
avatar
B
claydevon
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Apr 2020
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink] New post   03 Aug 2020, 05:03
is there anyone who can elaborate the exact meaning of "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"?

I barely understood intention of above sentence and logical reasoning. Why 'labor disputes must then be settled by binding arbitration' is the reason for the judgement of ' costly mistake'?
User avatar
VerbalBot
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17206
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink] New post   06 Jan 2024, 04:42
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costl [#permalink]
06 Jan 2024, 04:42
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions