NN 们，我有一道题百思不得其解，各位伸出援助之手吧，谢谢
The OLEX Petroleum Company has recently determined that it could cut its refining costs by closing its Grenville refinery and consolidating all refining at its Tasberg refinery. Closing the Grenville refinery, however, would mean the immediate loss of about 1,200 jobs in the Grenville area. Eventually the lives of more than 10,000 people would be seriously disrupted. Therefore, OLEX’s decision, announced yesterday, to keep Grenville open shows that at OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument given?
A. The Grenville refinery, although it operates at a higher cost than the Tasberg refinery, has nevertheless been moderately profitable for many years.
B. Even though OLEX could consolidate all its refining at the Tasberg plant, doing so at the Grenville plant would not be feasible.
C. The Tasberg refinery is more favorably situated than the Grenville refinery with respect to the major supply routes for raw petroleum.
D. If the Grenville refinery were ever closed and operations at the Tasberg refinery expanded, job openings at Tasberg would to the extent possible be filled with people formerly employed at Grenville.
E. Closure of the Grenville refinery would mean compliance, at enormous cost, with demanding local codes regulating the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites.
答案是E， why ?
文章行文方向表示: OLEX Company是social concerns 而非desire for higher profits
找weaken
Ans:E表示若关闭G精炼厂意谓有巨大成本->这不就weaken结论表示OLEX Company是家好公司, 因为本质上它还是担心成本的事, (与其承受巨大成本, 我不如不要关闭G,让它开着喂蚊子反正又不会有损失)
D:反而是支持, 表示早先因为OLEX Company关闭而失业的员工, 现在T厂扩厂而将早先的员工再雇回, 这是支持OLEX Company是social concerns
请指教
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |