求助GWD30-19 - ChaseDream - Powered by Discuz!

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.

People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.

从事安全敏感工作的人工作压力大，可能激发他们的坏毛病，包括喝酒。无关

我弄错了，答案是C，我现在觉得答案是对的，答案说bar anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job.就可以reduce the risk of accidents，然后C说如果这样做了很多有酗酒迹象的人就会隐藏他们的问题，削弱了结论。我觉得B是无关的，全篇都在谈论关于sensitive job.不涉及nonseneitive job啊？

Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.

它既没有说明sensitive job出不了事，也没有说明是否酗酒有什么关系.?

Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.

在这种情况下，我会去主动接受GMAT的答案，主动习惯它的逻辑方式，

我自己总结过，GMAT逻辑的答案是有固定特征的，这道题也很典型，

题一直在说集合A，答案突然来了集合A的补集，实际上是原命题的否命题，这是GMAT管用小伎俩，见多了就不怪了。

结论是说想要减少risk of accidents 就应该禁止曾经由于酗酒问题而被治疗过的人从事safety-sensitive job

其实结论中或者原文中暗含的假设也就是大量的accidents是由那些safety-sensitive job而来

那么B就是否定这个假设要是说大量的accidents是由nonsafety-sensitive job而来再怎么在safety-sensitive job上做文章都无效的

另外我想说要是不从这里假设上去否定按照原文思路层层往上推是不是就能得出这个结论 (要减少risk of accidents 就应该禁止曾经由于酗酒问题而被治疗过的人从事safety-sensitive job)

以下是引用s7s7在2007-6-14 13:29:00的发言：

ls你知道我为什么说这么多？

想把逻辑做对，千万别只按照自己的思维方式思考问题，

比如这道题：答案是经过反复论证的，铁定了是B

在这种情况下，我会去主动接受GMAT的答案，主动习惯它的逻辑方式，

我自己总结过，GMAT逻辑的答案是有固定特征的，这道题也很典型，

题一直在说集合A，答案突然来了集合A的补集，实际上是原命题的否命题，这是GMAT管用小伎俩，见多了就不怪了。

千万别细抠，想得太多不值得。

S7S7大侠我一开始看这个题目的时候觉得原文说的很有道理按照原文的思路推的话

出现这种情况的时候是不是题目常常就要出现象你所说的要出现A的补集了

Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do. （背景） 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（目标） of accidents should bar anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem from holding a safety-sensitive job（方案）.

B选项 Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.

many accidents 到底占总数的多少比例不知道，因为many在nonsafety-sensitives jobs 不能说明few accidents在safety-sensitive jobs 中

你说得对，这种两元素的题（喝酒和从事安全敏感工作），GMAT喜欢用逻辑思辨的方式，要么双重否定，甚至三重否定，要么用补集说事，实际上也是否定之否定。

很替你着急，我有个小小的建议，花连续5个小时，把100道OG的逻辑简图用纸和笔画出来，A推出B，B推出C，A推出C，你一定会有收获的，再有快速阅读，抓主干，抓关键词。无以为助，真是很惭愧！

选C,B是无关选项.原文认为解决问题的方法是禁止那些有酗酒问题的人继续在这个岗位上工作.
如果这是一道假设题,那答案就是:老板能把这些有问题的人找出来------类似题目大家应该做的很多了
取非假设就是老板找不到有问题的人,C就表明了那些有问题的人隐藏了自己的问题,这样老板就没办法找到他们,自然就削弱了结论

以下是引用s7s7在2007-6-14 13:05:00的发言：

要安全，酗酒者不能做A工作

削弱：

B工作才不安全。

although C looks very related, but look at the questions, it asks for the choice that most seriously undermines the argument

what is the argument? its 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.

有酗酒问题的一些人在安全敏感工作比没有酗酒问题的人发生工业事故更加普遍。因为即使经过治疗，将来这些人也比没有酗酒问题的人更容易酗酒，所以雇主如果要避免发生事故的风险，就应该将曾经有酗酒问题的人赶出安全敏感工作。

A,
一些公司将曾经酗酒的问题员工放入住宿制项目中，并且允许他们请几周的病假
（无关）

B,
许多事故都由没有在安全敏感工作的员工引起的
（无关选项，很容易误选成B，会误把把题目中的结论变成要减少风险，而实际上因为Since的关系，黄的话是原因，后面整段蓝的推论）

C,
许多工人因为怕因为酗酒问题而导致永远失去工作，所以隐瞒他们曾经酗酒的情况，尽量工作的更久。（直接削弱结论，隔断目标和方案的联系）

D,
在安全敏感工作上的人遭受着压力会使他们的个人问题加剧，包括酗酒
（支持结论）

以下是引用mimixiaxia在2007-8-30 18:17:00的发言：

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument above?

Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.
Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.
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.
People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.
Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error.

A. Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.无关
B. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.不能削弱结论，即使B说的是事实，那么颁布新规定，可以降低事故概率，即使对于总的事故概率来说这种降低微不足道。但是，确实降低了，那么此选项不能削弱
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.正确。工人隐瞒情况，所以规定达不到预期目的。
D.

eople who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.想通了，这个选项也不能削弱。不管后来工人有没有喝酒，至少规定的实习，排除了现有危险因素，降低了事故概率。
E. Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error.无关

这个argument的因果关系中并没有很明显很直接的逻辑漏洞，要weaken就要找结论中隐含漏洞，我称之为“找茬”，就是这个关键的短语“has ever been treated”，看到这里，实际上就可以开始猜想了：has ever been treated那群人的相对物——也就是has never been treated的那群人是否存在；如果存在，有没有这样一种可能，就是实际上这群没有被treated的人是和treated过的那些人是一样的，只不过因为他们没有treated而已。

这个argument里最扎眼的一个部分就是“has ever been treated”，因为没有treated的人并不代表就一定是清白的，“找茬”找准了，在选项里套，答案就出来。所以我建议是早点复习AA，这个“找茬”的功底在复习AA的时候可以得到很好的锻炼。

B肯定不对Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.只说不安全敏感的工作事故多，但没说文章推荐的方法不能减少事故率，典型的无关

D，哎，确实是想多了，就算他们之后会有drinking problems，说不定也可以发现，然后不让他们做了。。。

同意35楼对D的解释，这题想了半天，觉得逻辑题还是要紧紧抓住结论做题，这题削弱的就是结论提出方案的可行性，只有C直接从结论下手。我觉得D不是支持，肯定是削弱，只是没有C更贴近题目。选最佳还是C好

ChaseDream

1. GWD-30-Q19