It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 11:07

### 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: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 134

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2005, 04:33
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

47% (01:57) correct 53% (01:56) wrong based on 288 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.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 15

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2005, 09:25
This one is hard. My guess is C by process of elimination. I think the other ones either are out of scope or aren't necessarily supported by the information in the passage.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 11 Mar 2005
Posts: 717

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2005, 10:44
A covers only one aspect
B is also extreme.. Although it is mentioned in the argument but not for all categories....
C look good
D is out of scope
E also covers one aspect.

C it is..

Kudos [?]: 77 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 03 Nov 2004
Posts: 850

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2005, 12:52
One more for C

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1700

Kudos [?]: 473 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka
For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2005, 14:10
20. 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.
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 473 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2005
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Location: Fringes of the Boreal, Canada

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2005, 17:43
I'm awful at these but I like C in this case.

The passage states that it would be costly for a local government to disallow the striking rights of public sector workers because there is no governmental entity involved in the binding arbitration process. This suggests that there is better representation on the public workers side creating an advantage in arbitration process.....please God be right

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 498

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2005, 20:04
I vote for C.

A - Out of scope. Contract negotiations??
B - Incorrect. This only a suggestion in the argument.
C - Costly mistake for local goverment.Hence correct.
D - Incorrect. Argument is not talking og the public sector
E - Incorrect. Assumes that the local goverment has already outlawed the strikes.

What is the OA??

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2005
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Location: Fringes of the Boreal, Canada

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2005, 20:23
Are we going to get an answer for this?

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 402

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2005, 23:25
a) Out of scope
b)
c) No
d) Out of scope
e) Out of scope

Best answer is B. The stimulus concludes that strikes should be outlawed for public sector workers who have no substitutes. The extension to this conclusion is B.

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 1112

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

Location: London, UK
Schools: Tuck'08

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2005, 23:30
Between A and B for me
I would go for A

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 1112

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

Location: London, UK
Schools: Tuck'08

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2005, 23:31
double post..sorry

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2005
Posts: 102

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2005, 02:21
I would go for C

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798

Kudos [?]: 170 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2005, 09:50
C

"Costly Mistake" is the key here. It means that the other party benefits.

Kudos [?]: 170 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 1700

Kudos [?]: 473 [0], given: 0

Location: Dhaka

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2005, 22:19
good job once again OA is C.
_________________

hey ya......

Kudos [?]: 473 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 659

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Location: London
For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2006, 07:22
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.

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1124

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 0

Location: Bangalore

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2006, 11:15
Is it A? Really confusing!

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 117

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2006, 11:36
I pick E.

My reasoning is that statement concludes that strikes should only be outlawed for public sector workers. If strikes are outlawed for public sector workers, then all labor disputes are settled by outside arbitrators.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 144

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2006, 11:43
Iâ€™m leaning towards C or B. But Iâ€™ll go with C.

A â€“ nothing is stated to support this. Instead, it states that only when strikes are banned must workers negotiate via binding arbitration (a form of court, I guess).

B â€“ Supported by the last sentence. Could be this one as wellâ€¦ Not sure.

C â€“ The first sentence explains that outlawing strikes is a costly mistake for the reason that the dispute would then have to be settled by binding arbitration. So C can be inferred from this, i.e. binding arbitration is advantageous when itâ€™s the only available means of settling the dispute.

D â€“ Private sector is irrelevant here.

E â€“ workers in local government is out of scope.

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 169

Kudos [?]: 206 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2006, 11:57
I will go for B.

Kudos [?]: 206 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1338

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2006, 12:01
C. becasue it is the only choice that supports the conclusion. Rest all either donot support or related to the conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Re: CR strike   [#permalink] 05 Apr 2006, 12:01

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 49 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by