Industrial accidents are
more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking
problems than when none do. Since, even
after treatment, people who have had drinking problems are somewhat more likely
than other people to have drinking problems in the future, any employer trying
to reduce the risk of accidents should bar anyone who has ever been treated for
a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job.
Which of the following,
if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?
A.
Some companies place employees who are being treated for
drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid
sick leave.
B.
Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by
employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.
C.
Workers who would permanently lose their jobs if they
sought treatment for a drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem
and continue working for as long as possible.
D.
People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to
stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including
drinking problems.
E.
Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure
rather than by employee error.
答案是c,请问NN?作者: seanceserene 时间: 2010-12-30 06:56
我选B作者: piacia 时间: 2010-12-30 20:55
我试试~比较弱
B 选项我认识它削弱了第一句话，是前提而不是结论。所以不能选B
C 这句话其实我觉得它主谓宾结构相当纠结。但可以意译成：如果那些WORKERS原本有DRINKING PROBLEM的不想LOSE JOB会选择CONCEAL，那么EMPLOYER在选择时会认为他们没有问题而录用。事实上他们有PROBLEM（会造成ACCIDENT）。这样的话，其实就是因果型削弱中的：无因（EMPLOYER认为他们没有过DRINKING PROBLEM TREATMENT)但有果（他们有PROBLEM会ACCIDENT）
