Idustrial accidents are more common when some fo 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 emplyer tring to reduce the risk of accident should bar anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from hoding 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 employee 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 treament for a drinking problem and continue working for as long as possible.
(D) People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subjest 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.
答案给的是C，但是我总觉得D合理，有好多题的削弱都是看上去把原因和结果颠倒阿，这个D也是啊
C是对的.原文说"为了减少事故.employer不让那些曾经接受过治疗的人干safety-sensitive的活".
C说"有些人可能怕下岗就隐瞒了他曾经接受过治疗的事",C引起的后果就是采用了这个办法,不一定就能减少事故.
D是没关的.
楼主能说说你选D的理由吗?
我们要找的选相是要反削弱"不让那些曾经接受过治疗的人干safety-sensitive的活,就会减少事故".
你说的:
D是说酗酒是因为从事这个职业造成的,所以任何人(以前不酗酒的)也会因为压力开夹锞?所以也会发生事故,就削弱了原文的结论啊.
也是有可能的会发生,可是它不是在削弱原文, 是和文章说的没关.
如果原来没问题，紧张并不会造成什么。
正确理解原文和选项的意思和逻辑关系永远是最重要的
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |