[問題]大全5-20

[shena]

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.

Ans:(C)

可否解釋一下選項(B)的涵義?TKS~

[auguding]

耶都沒人回
我也不懂
高手拜託一下!!!

[auguding]

PLEASE~~

[dibert8]

(B) 在所有罷工都不合法的情況下,雇員所提供的服務無可取代
題目說只有雇員所提供的服務無可取代的工作才令罷工不合法; (B) 錯在"all" categories, 題目是 "only for" categories