问题描述：
GMAT CR ,
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.
呵呵，你很幽默，能看出来说的很形象，但是我还是对这个题干没啥感觉，这逻辑是啥。
说白了，罢工厉害是啥，仲裁有怎样呢？
望不吝赐教
全部仲裁就怎么了，guideline又怎样呢，为啥公共部门服务不能替代的人就得取缔他们的罢工，我是搞不懂这些之间有啥关系。
那意思是，仲裁所有罢工很贵，因为没有SOP。而有些人职务不可替代，别人搞不了，只能他们搞，就只 仲裁他们。其他人爱罢工罢工，我不仲裁，就老鼻子钱了？
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.
呵呵，你很幽默，能看出来说的很形象，但是我还是对这个题干没啥感觉，这逻辑是啥。
说白了，罢工厉害是啥，仲裁有怎样呢？
望不吝赐教
全部仲裁就怎么了，guideline又怎样呢，为啥公共部门服务不能替代的人就得取缔他们的罢工，我是搞不懂这些之间有啥关系。
那意思是，仲裁所有罢工很贵，因为没有SOP。而有些人职务不可替代，别人搞不了，只能他们搞，就只 仲裁他们。其他人爱罢工罢工，我不仲裁，就老鼻子钱了？
问题解答：
我来补答展开全文阅读