XDF section 5-20

dandan74

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 statement above best support which of the following conclusions?
(A) Where public-service workers are permited to strike, contract negotiations with those workers are typically settled without a strike.
(B) Where strikes by all categories of public-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 pubblic-service workers where it is the onlky available means of settling labor dispute with such workers.
(D) Most categories of public-sector workers have no counterparts in the private sector.
(E) A strike by workers ina  local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator.
为什么选A呢，这道题诗什么意思呢? 我总是无法建立答案和原题的联系。

lckshb

I think B is the best choice

lckshb

Sorry, further reflection reveals A is Correct. B的推理不严谨：A-->B不代表B--->A.
Choice A 正确的理由是，题中说strike只有当没有negotiation时才被Outlaw，所以当Strike被允许（不被Outlaw）时,那么它肯定可以被negotiation。

dandan74

谢谢你的讲解，清楚了。原来还是原命题和逆命题之间的关系。