ts4-21

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.

这道题 我选 d。觉得Grenville.closed 后，正好 人都到 T 里去了，所以是很好的销弱。

但答案 shhi E，

我 想着 e 收拾完 abandoned sites，这些人 还是会 没工作。

我也认为应该是选D

You said "这道题 我选 d。觉得Grenville.closed 后，正好 人都到 T 里去了，所以是很好的销弱。"

It is true that D weaken the saying that "to keep Grenville open shows OLEX's social concerns", but it doesn't weaken the whole argument:"social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits."

The real purpose of the company is actually "the desire for higher profits." which is denied by the argument itself. Now, E says otherwise. it says that the enormous cost to clean up the site is the real reason behind the company's decision to keep it open.

That is to say,  the original argument states :"social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits."

E is the opposite: the desire for higher profit outweighs social concerns.

Hence, E is the correct answer.

结论得出来：保持Grenville开着是这家公司关心社会不图经济回报（好高尚啊^_^）

题目要求:削弱

目标：这破公司其实还是为了经济回报

E：关闭Grenville意味着一大笔的花费，什么花费呢？清理厂房的花费。－－－厂家还是为了省钱，为了经济利益才不关厂的。

所以选E

D：如果G厂关了，T厂里都是G厂里下岗的工人。这不是挺好嘛，如果T厂里工人多了，扩张了，赚钱了，转的比G厂多的话，这养关了G厂只有好，烧了更好。换句话说D没有牵涉到【反对】结论里的【社会因素是真，经济利益假】

可是 结论： outweitht 是 超过，而不是 不图 经济回报。

而我认为目标不是 ：这破公司其实还是为了经济回报，而是 经济 和 社会因素同时考虑阿。

而 d  及考虑到 社会因素，也考虑到了 经济因素阿。

所以当时就 选了 D

不过 又 觉得你这句话说得很有道理  换句话说D没有牵涉到【反对】结论里的【社会因素是真，经济利益假】

又觉得 E 好像更对， 觉得 D 更像是建议。 而 E更像是 削弱。

不过考试的时候 。可能 在 没看懂 E的情况下，还会选D。 谢谢 gonghao

D只是说了一个现象，如果关闭G厂，D可以作为一个conclusion

但是作为削弱，D本身并不能削弱你所说的“经济 和 社会因素同时考虑”。T工厂充满了G工厂的工人，本身既不能增强，也不能削弱。因为得出得结论是【工厂更倾向于保护人的利益比之经济利益】

如果削弱的话，只要说经济利益是真正的原因，【工厂更倾向于保护人的利益比之经济利益】只是一个假相，其实是【更倾向于经济利益比之保护人的利益】

E就是说为了省钱才是真正的原因，是一个削弱的答案。

...