ChaseDream

标题: feifei-90题 [打印本页]

---

作者: purpleland    时间: 2008-9-1 23:21
标题: feifei-90题

90. Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and nonsmokers on the premises of privately owned businesses is an intrusion into the private sector that cannot be justified. The fact that studies indicate that nonsmokers might be harmed by inhaling the smoke from others’ cigarettes is not the main issue. Rather, the main issue concerns the government’s violation of the right of private businesses to determine their own policies and rules.

Which of the following is a principle that, if accepted, could enable the conclusion to be properly drawn?

(A) Government intrusion into the policies and rules of private businesses is justified only when individuals might be harmed.

(B) The right of individuals to breathe safe air supersedes the right of businesses to be free from government intrusion.

(C) The right of businesses to self-determination overrides whatever right or duty the government may have to protect the individual.

(D) It is the duty of private businesses to protect employees from harm in the workplace.

(E) Where the rights of businesses and the duty of government conflict, the main issue is finding a successful compromise.

答案是C选项，想请问一下D选项为什么不对呢？如果说protect employees from harm是公司的职责的话，不就能说明政府破坏了公司的职责了吗？

---

作者: dianecarton    时间: 2008-9-2 02:39

作者不支持公司划分吸烟区非吸烟区的现行法律，因为他认为这是政府侵犯公司私有权利而代为制定规章制度的行为。问支持

C公司私有权利凌驾于一切政府保护个人利益的职责之上。  换句话说就是公司私有权利不容政府以任何理由侵犯，正好支持了短文中的结论

D文章中说的很清楚，非吸烟者吸二手烟的危害与否病不影响作者的论断。因为现在说的是政府越权，而不是员工健康谁应负责的问题。

---

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)

Powered by Discuz! X3.3