Board logo

标题: 一颗炸弹 [打印本页]

作者: alanguo    时间: 2005-12-14 10:59     标题: 一颗炸弹

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.


作者: Mikech    时间: 2005-12-14 19:43

C?


作者: alanguo    时间: 2005-12-14 21:49

是呀,答案是C。可你能不能给点解释。我连意思都没搞懂。
作者: zenghao    时间: 2005-12-14 22:48

欧叶选C.

第一句说在禁止罢工是错误的,原因是必须使用 binding arbitration; 第二句说在no acceptable substitute的情况下,罢工应该被禁止---这就是在肯定此时使用binding arbitration是可取的。不就是C的意思吗。


作者: alanguo    时间: 2005-12-14 23:33

”。。。without any negotiated public-sector labor settlements guiding the arbitrators“是什么意思?

”。。。for whose services no acceptable substitute exists.“是什么意思?for是介词还是连词?


作者: steveyangxt    时间: 2006-1-14 20:46

意思是仲裁者没有合理的依据。

是介词,共同引导从句,no acceptable substitute exists for their services.






欢迎光临 国际顶尖MBA申请交流平台--TOPWAY MBA (http://forum.topway.org/) Powered by Discuz! 7.2