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\E
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，我选的是a。不明白，请牛牛指教。
a的重点意思是还在赚钱，因此关闭会少赚钱，不能说明处于金钱的考虑，E就明显了
a的重点意思是还在赚钱，因此关闭会少赚钱，不能说明处于金钱的考虑，E就明显了
关闭会少赚钱还不能说明处于金钱的考虑？我不懂。好像这句话的逻辑有点问题，请再说的详细一点，谢谢！
A中首先时间范围就不对for many years说的是过去，过去的情况不能用于说明现在和将来。是无关选项。第二，A只是说是关闭前有盈利，但并没说合并后的利润会降低。不能起到削弱作用。
而E选项中，直接指出关闭会引发更多的成本，即根本不能减少成本，反而会使成本增加，因此企业还是从自身的角度考虑问题。
非常感谢mych666666的指点，我想通了
解释的太透彻了！多谢多谢！！
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |