标题: 这道罗技谁能帮忙分析分析 [打印本页] 作者: jojobqq 时间: 2010-12-23 11:02 标题: 这道罗技谁能帮忙分析分析 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.
谢谢各位同学啦 作者: david0106 时间: 2010-12-23 11:32
答案是d吗？作者: zhangjy 时间: 2010-12-23 11:41
B?作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2010-12-23 11:50
C is the answer.作者: self 时间: 2010-12-23 11:54
B(个人猜测) 本题说：工人喝酒对于事故的影响 答案B说：事故不是由那些喝酒的人引起的，也就削弱了 工人喝酒对事故的影响。 不知回答满意否作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2010-12-23 11:57
In GMAT terms, many = some = between 1 out of 100 and 100 out of 100.作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2010-12-23 11:59
Premise: workers with previous drinking problem is more prone to accidents than worker with no previous drinking problems.
Conclusion: 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.
That is a pretty drastic measure. Let's see if any of the answer choice would ruin this otherwise foolproof safety measure. (C) says that workers might lie about their drinking problem and can still remain on the job. Then based on the premise, these liars would be accident prone! So drastic measure, once installed, might not lead to reduction of accidents.
D is not 因果倒置 because it links stress, NOT accidents, as a cause for drinking problems. Thus D has no effect on the argument.作者: jojobqq 时间: 2010-12-23 12:20
BCD答案都出来了。。。。