ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1265|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

费费 90

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2007-3-29 18:29:00 | 只看该作者

费费 90

Current legislation that requires designated sections for smokers and nonsmokers on the premises of privately owned businesses is an intrusion into the privately owned businesses is an intrusion into the private sector that cannot be justified. The fact that studies indicate that nonsmokers might be harmed by inhaling the smoke from others’ cigarettes is not the main issue. Rather, the main issue concerns the government’s violation of the right of private businesses to determine their own policies and rule.

Which one of the following is principle that, if accepted, could enable the conclusion to be properly drawn?

(A) Government intrusion into the policies and rules of private businesses is justified only when individuals might be harmed.

(B) The right of individuals to breathe safe air supersedes the right of businesses to be free from government intrusion.

(C) The right of businesses to self-determination overrides whatever right or duty the government may have to protect the individual.

(D) It is the duty of private businesses to protect employees from harm in the workplace.

(E) Where the rights of businesses and the duty of government conflict, the main issue is finding a successful compromise.

答案是c,请教~~

沙发
发表于 2007-3-29 21:42:00 | 只看该作者
估计你可能没看懂这道题目的意思。而且这道题的第一句话有点让人费解。但是后面的句子还是能够帮助我们理解此题的真正含义。
本题的结论是:目前的立法要求私人企业设立吸烟区和非吸烟区是对私人企业自主权的侵犯,是不合理的。作者的提供的事实依据是:调查表明不吸烟者通过吸入吸烟者的烟可能会受到伤害,这个并不是主要问题。主要问题是政府会侵犯私人企业独立制定自己的政策和规定的权利。问下列哪项原则是的该结论成立:
C企业的自主权是高于政府保护个人不受伤害的权利和责任。

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2007-3-29 22:12:00 | 只看该作者

还真是把意思理解错了,谢啦!

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2025-1-9 01:47
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部