大全5－20

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.（C）

(E) A strike by workers in a local government is unlikely to be settled without help from an arbitrator.

看了以前大家对这题的解释，我现在是这样理解这个题目的：当地政府把政府工作人员的所有罢工列为非法是一个昂贵的错误，因为所有这些劳动争端接着将通过达成仲裁协议解决（即是通过某协商机构的协商解决，但是这种协商费用昂贵），而且不受任何（较低级别的）negotiation的解决方法所引导。只有当罢工者从事别人无法替代的工作时，才可以把罢工列为非法。我的理解对嘛？？那C选项又是什么意思呢？？？

题干中的“because all its labor disputes must then be settled by binding arbitration, without any negotiated public-sector labor settlements guiding the arbitrators.”，请问这里的all its labor disputes是指包括罢工在内的所有劳动纠纷吗？那这边的then是什么意思呢？这里的because怎么解释前面的“For a local government to outlaw all strikes by its workers is a costly mistake”呢？与后面的without any negotiated....又是什么关系呢？

还请大家多多指教，感谢！！

1。原文：地方政府规定它的工人罢工是昂贵的错误，因为这样（THEN）所有争议必须通过有约束力的仲裁解决，而政府部门又没有约定俗成的劳动纠纷解决方案指导仲裁员（没有约定俗成的东西，仲裁的路很长，费用会很高）。应该只规定公务员罢工违法，应为他们的工作无法被代替。

2。其实对C的推出只需要原文的两个信息：一是除罢工外，所有纠纷都只能通过仲裁解决，虽然仲裁贵。二是公务员罢工违法。对所有人，只有两种方法解决纠纷（罢工，仲裁），但对公务员，因为罢工违法，在这情况下（只有违法和仲裁两种选择），当然仲裁有利。即C。

感谢感谢

hmm...不过偶还有一点不太明白：categories of public-sector workers for whose services no acceptable substitute exists中的for whose services no acceptable substitute exists是限定修饰categories of public-sector workers吗，还是非限定修饰呢（是不是有逗号才能算作是非限定修饰呢）？你的解释“应该只规定公务员罢工违法，应为他们的工作无法被代替。”， 为什么不能理解成“应该规定那些别人无法代替他工作的公务员的罢工为非法”，还请多多指教，谢谢！

请问B 为何不对

觉得B类似 :Strikes should be outlawed only for categories of public-sector

workers for whose services no acceptable substitute exists.