Last visit was: 11 Jul 2025, 14:20 It is currently 11 Jul 2025, 14:20
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
wild_desperado
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Last visit: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 76
Own Kudos:
294
 [77]
Posts: 76
Kudos: 294
 [77]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
73
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
TommyWallach
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Last visit: 14 Nov 2011
Posts: 323
Own Kudos:
7,252
 [22]
Given Kudos: 11
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Location: San Francisco
Concentration: Journalism
 Q47  V47 GMAT 2: 770  Q49  V48
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 323
Kudos: 7,252
 [22]
18
Kudos
Add Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
remgeo
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Last visit: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 263
Own Kudos:
Location: London
Posts: 263
Kudos: 38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
hogann
Joined: 29 Jun 2009
Last visit: 21 Apr 2015
Posts: 117
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 2
Affiliations: CFA Level 2 Candidate
Concentration: Finance
Schools:RD 2: Darden Class of 2012
 Q49  V35
Posts: 117
Kudos: 1,330
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Last visit: 27 Jan 2012
Posts: 228
Own Kudos:
1,268
 [2]
Given Kudos: 32
Posts: 228
Kudos: 1,268
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Last visit: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 519
Own Kudos:
5,815
 [2]
Given Kudos: 40
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Posts: 519
Kudos: 5,815
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
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
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Last visit: 14 Nov 2011
Posts: 323
Own Kudos:
7,252
 [2]
Given Kudos: 11
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Location: San Francisco
Concentration: Journalism
 Q47  V47 GMAT 2: 770  Q49  V48
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 323
Kudos: 7,252
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
Joined: 24 Nov 2010
Last visit: 20 Jun 2013
Posts: 118
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 7
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Posts: 118
Kudos: 276
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
Joined: 18 Jan 2012
Last visit: 16 Feb 2017
Posts: 5
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5
Status:Studying
Work: Manager
Posts: 5
Kudos: 8
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
ShashankDave
Joined: 03 Apr 2013
Last visit: 26 Jan 2020
Posts: 218
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 872
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V41
GPA: 3
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V41
Posts: 218
Kudos: 279
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
fanatico
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
IanStewart
User avatar
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Last visit: 11 Jul 2025
Posts: 4,141
Own Kudos:
10,610
 [4]
Given Kudos: 97
 Q51  V47
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,141
Kudos: 10,610
 [4]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
Madhavi1990
Joined: 15 Jan 2017
Last visit: 15 Jul 2021
Posts: 256
Own Kudos:
91
 [1]
Given Kudos: 931
Posts: 256
Kudos: 91
 [1]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
claydevon
Joined: 06 Apr 2020
Last visit: 08 Jun 2021
Posts: 3
Given Kudos: 4
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,437
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,437
Kudos: 953
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7349 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts