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.
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 workplace 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 treatment for a drinking problem try instead to conceal their problem and continue working for as long as possible.
D. People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject 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.
觉得C,D都对，
关于D，我的疑问：
D 指出原文逻辑推理的“因果颠倒”来削弱的。
题目说
酗酒
导致
安全岗位出事故，因此要赶走酒鬼；
但D说
在安全岗位工作
导致
酗酒，
那这样无论来这个岗位工作的人曾经是否酗酒，但来了后都可能酗酒，然后才可能导致安全事故。。。。
貌似D也对啊，我这样推理D，逻辑推理错在哪里？
但D说
在安全岗位工作
导致
酗酒，
那这样无论来这个岗位工作的人曾经是否酗酒，但来了后都可能酗酒，然后才可能导致安全事故。。。。
貌似D也对啊，我这样推理D，逻辑推理错在哪里？
“can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.”不是你分析的“这个岗位工作的人曾经是否酗酒”，而是有酗酒习惯，在safety-sensitive工作上会exacerbate罢了。
谢谢，没理解 exacerbate的含义，以为是“引起、促使”的意思了。
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |