天山-4-21 - ChaseDream - Powered by Discuz!

Q21:
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. 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.
Answer:

OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire
for higher profits.
这是文章的结论

答案里一定要有这样的意思，OLEX这么做其实还是因为钱的关系。

原文说为了cut the cost，决定要去关掉G，然而由于G的关闭会引起很多社会问题。

E-关掉后，要清理遗留物的cost非常高，所以继续开，说明G继续开还是考虑到成本而不是社会问题

A-profit的多少，与原文的cost cut无关，原文并没有说 G是不赚钱的，只是说成本太高了，基于降成本的考虑,刚开始决定关掉G

B-排除他因，consolidate不行，仍继续开，说明是考虑社会问题；

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. 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.

E一直说的就是cost，没有提到social concerns 和higher profits.
而A，则说profits 会有很多，所以这题应该是A吧？？？

以下是引用mymengming在2006-7-13 19:04:00的发言：

E一直说的就是cost，没有提到social concerns 和higher profits.
而A，则说profits 会有很多，所以这题应该是A吧？？？

我做逻辑的基本方法，如果该问题论证结构是前提结论分别为原因结果，则找其他原因证明该结果不成立。原文的结论是 OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits，证明其不成立的方法就是找出其他理由说明OLEX并不是因为关心社会才不进行consolidation的，所以选E

以下是引用tonyliu29在2006-12-30 22:48:00的发言：
和cost有关，ABCD都是无关排除

我认为A比E对结论"at OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits" 更有攻击力。

题目说厂要cut cost，所以打算关G厂。大家都知道，cut cost 是为了钱嘛~ 企业说到底最根本目的也是为了钱呀~钱从哪里来？profit呀！

A说“G厂虽然cost多，但是还是有利润。”
1. 都提到利润了，怎么和原文无关呢？
2. 既然有利润了，还管它cost多干什么？cost再多，只要有利润，都不应该关厂啊！
3. 直接反对了结论，说明该厂就是desire for higher profits

E说“关厂要付一大笔清理费，所以不关厂”
然后有朋友说A的利润不能代表将来，而且moderate不能说明到底是多还是少，
那我就纳闷了，既然要这么想的话，那E不是更不能代表将来吗？
大家想想看，如果G厂是在亏本而不盈利的，即使是要付一大笔清理费，如果你是厂商也许你还是会关门的吧，这叫长痛不如短痛啊！

按照微观经济学里面讲到利益最大化，就是应该到边际利润为0的时候停止生产。那么A就符合这个道理啊，哪怕明天只能赚10块钱，后天就没钱赚了，那也应该开到明天再关嘛~！

所以如果想用“是为了钱而不是社会利益”来削弱的话，我觉得A的结论是G厂能有利润（一定能有钱哦！），而E的结论是能省一笔清理费（省这笔钱≠>一定能有钱），那么A不是更合理么？

以下是引用jhtcherry在2009-4-1 15:14:00的发言：

我认为A比E对结论"at OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits" 更有攻击力。

题目说厂要cut cost，所以打算关G厂。大家都知道，cut cost 是为了钱嘛~ 企业说到底最根本目的也是为了钱呀~钱从哪里来？profit呀！

你也用红字把原文的重点HIGHLIGHT出来了。文中说的是desire for higher profits,A选项说G厂的cost是higher的，所以profit是moderate的。如果关闭G厂，把所有的refining都到T厂去，将会减少很多cost，从而产生higher profit.所以G厂继续开，profit是不如关闭来的多的，所以这个选项实际上就是说不关厂是social concern,是在加强结论。

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.

然而B选项根本就是一个无关的选项。说把所有的refining,consolidate到G厂是行不通的，要关闭G是因为G的cost太高，那为什么还要考虑把所有的refining consolidate到G是否feasible呢? 如果说把所有的refining consolidate到任何其他一个plant都是not feasible的，那么这个选项或许可以成为一个答案。

本题问的是，OLEX’s decision, announced yesterday, to keep Grenville open shows that at OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits.所以首先就要从钱的因素考虑，E选项说关闭plant会造成很大一部分cost，所以E应该是正确答案。