标题: LSAT17III-9 [打印本页] 作者: joice 时间: 2003-8-22 23:50 标题: LSAT17III-9 9. Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally damaging accidents are now so high that it costs a company responsible for such an accident more to pay the fine than it would have cost to adopt measures that would have prevented the accident. Therefore, since businesses value their profits, those that might have such accidents will now install adequate environmental safeguards
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents.
(B) Businesses are as concerned with long-term as they are with short-term strategies for maximizing profits.
(C) Businesses generally do the environmentally "right" thing only if doing so makes good business sense.
(D) Businesses treat fines that are levied against them as an ordinary business expense.
(E) Businesses are learning to exploit the public's environmental awareness in promoting themselves.
Answer:A I attacked since businesses value their profits, and chose D. Where i went wrong? Thanks!
作者: cranberry 时间: 2003-8-23 16:41
你选择B的依据在文中找不到，我想你的逻辑是重视短期利润就不会为环保支出，可这个逻辑你在文中是读不出的，同时，短期利润就不会因为被罚款而受影响么？什么是短期呢？很模糊的一个表达。作者: joice 时间: 2003-8-23 22:58
Thanks. Can you please explain why not D? . It says: Therefore, since businesses value their profits, those that might have such accidents will now install adequate environmental safeguards. D: businesses treat fines as expense. Consumers may pay higher price, but businesses still can make the same profits. so, value their profits can't be a motivation for businesses to install environmental safeguards. So weaken.
作者: cranberry 时间: 2003-8-24 00:58
你对于 D 的解释又增加了一个题外的条件，即增加费用支出不会影响利润，方法是提高价格，那么就要问了，提高价格会都卖的出去吗？又要涉及许多题外的条件，这些都是文中读不出的，所以，请一定不要自己增加文中不存在的条件的推理。作者: joice 时间: 2003-8-24 08:47
Thanks, cranberrry. I agree.