返回列表 发帖

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.

收藏 分享

C?

TOP

是呀,答案是C。可你能不能给点解释。我连意思都没搞懂。

TOP

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。

TOP

”。。。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?

TOP

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.

相视一笑,莫逆于心。

TOP

返回列表

站长推荐 关闭


美国top10 MBA VIP申请服务

自2003年开始提供 MBA 申请服务以来,保持着90% 以上的成功率,其中Top10 MBA服务成功率更是高达95%


查看