Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Jul 1206:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join our webinar to master GMAT RC Main Point Questions! Learn effective strategies to decipher passage themes and purposes. Senior Verbal Expert- Sunita Singhvi will equip you with tools to navigate complexities and avoid common traps set by the GMAT.
Jul 1211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test.
Jun 3008:00 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
Join us June 30th for 2 weeks of GMAT questions (just 8 per day) to help with your prep and to compete with your fellow GMAT Clubbers for a chance to win a prize fund of $30,000 for you and your team-mates!
Jul 0901:00 PM EDT
-02:00 PM EDT
More Target Test Prep students are earning 100th percentile GMAT scores. Don’t settle for less when the Target Test Prep course gives you everything you need to score high on the GMAT. Start your 5-day free trial today.
Jul 1311:00 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.
Jul 1508:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Jul 1611:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
17 Jun 2005, 04:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
45% (02:26) correct
55%
(02:31)
wrong
based on 1532
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
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.
24 Jan 2010, 14:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
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
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
06 Apr 2006, 07:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
