GWD-30-Q19

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?

1. Some companies place
        employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential
        programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.
2. Many accidents in the
        workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold
        safety-sensitive jobs.
3. 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.
4. People who hold
        safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any
        personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.
5. Some industrial accidents
        are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error.

我倾向D. 但有可能我脑子糊涂. 睡一觉了再看.

这道题上周有过讨论的.可能是重题不重号.

mm在GWD搜一下记下题号,在CR区里搜.

睡醒了. 支持C.

workers would permanently lose their jobs if they sought treatment try instead to conceal their problem. 就是说这个ban导致了worker不去医治. 本来没这个ban, workers就直接去sought treatment了.

B)Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.

B is wrong b/c it has nothing to do with the argument that anyone who has ever been treated for a drinking problem should not be hired for a safety-sensitive job.

感觉D像因果倒置

是不是因为它没有针对结论

我就是感觉D像因果倒置, 才选了他.

D有先后的问题

D的说法，是先到了职位，再恶化平行，导致了。

文章是说ban那些治疗过的人

文章的内容已经是D之后的东西了，即使D是成立的也不weaken结论本身。

即治疗过的人应该被ban