ChaseDream

标题: LSAT－17－3－9 [打印本页]

作者: swimmingfrog 时间: 2004-12-22 01:33
标题: LSAT－17－3－9

9. Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally damaging accidents are now so high that it costs a company responsible for such an accident more to pay the fine than it would have cost to adopt measures that would have prevented the accident. Therefore, since businesses value their profits, those that might have such accidents will now install adequate environmental safeguards.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents.

(B) Businesses are as concerned with long-term as they are with short-term strategies for maximizing profits.

(D) Businesses treat fines that are levied against them as an ordinary business expense.（A）

(E) Businesses are learning to exploit the public’s environmental awareness in promoting themselves.

the simulus:

1. business value their profits

2.Fines for damaging environment costs more than adopting measurements to prevent those accidents

conclusion: business install safeguards(adopt measurements to prevent)

weaken:

A 公司低估the risk of future accidents.

D:Business 把罚款看作是正常开销。（即，不把罚款当回事，所以罚的再多，公司也不会install safeguard）我这样想不对吗？

作者: hedonism555 时间: 2004-12-22 23:22

line of reasoning:

since fine is greater than prevention, company will certainly choose the cheaper one.

A= the actual cost for a business activity by a company may be higher than fine, but the company thought it si lower than fine. so it would like to be fined rather than do prevention.

D even the fine is a common expense, a company will definitely choose a cheaper cost, right ? so, it will surely pick prevention. Not weaken.

also , it is common sense

作者: swimmingfrog 时间: 2004-12-23 06:55

大侠是酱子理解“公司低估the risk of future accidents”

那这种理解行不？

由于低估the risk of future accidents, 说明未来时间的危险性很高，所以罚钱会是很高的，但公司低估了嘛，所以公司可能不会采取措施。

作者: hedonism555 时间: 2004-12-23 10:49

(A) Businesses generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accidents.===>

They consider they will pay less fine for future accidents. So, they may take corresponingly less prevention. However, the actual risk will cost them much more and if they correctly gauge the risk, they will certainly install adequate environmental safeguards. But, they actually do not since they underestimate the risk .

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-12-23 11:06:36编辑过]

作者: swimmingfrog 时间: 2004-12-23 11:16
clear ,3x.

作者: Bensontuo 时间: 2019-8-15 16:28

swimmingfrog 发表于 2004-12-22 01:33
9.     Fines levied against those responsible for certain environmentally damagi ...

Spot the question type: Weaken

Core of the argument:

Fine higher than what they spend on the environmental damages, so, since they value the profit, they will now install adequate environmental safeguard.

What is the necessary assumption here ?

It must be true that the cost of installing adequate environmental safeguard is no more than the cost of paying the fine.

let us dive into the answers.

A. Business generally greatly underestimate the risk of future accident

Ok, if they can't determine how much would be the cost of paying the fine, how can they access the cost of installing adequate safeguards ? - Correct answer

B. Business are as concerned with long term as they are with short term for maximizing their profits

1. We don't know if both long term and short term could be relevant to the cost of the damaging accidents nor do we know whether its relevant to the relationship of cost and profit. Not relevant

C. There is no right or wrong as to install the safe guards. Meanwhile, it does not explain what is good business sense.

D. It does not mean they dont want to lower the expanse, which is the cost.

E. Totally not relevant

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