求解OG11 CR38

maydayguan · 发表于 2012-11-4 16:41:16

38、Companies O and P each have the same number of employees who work the same number of hours per week. According to records maintained by each company, the employees of Company O had fewer job-related accidents last year than did the employees of Company P. Therefore, employees of Company O are less likely to have job-related accidents than are employees of Company P.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the conclusion above?
(A) The employees of Company P lost more time at work due to job-related accidents than did the employees of Company O.
(B) Company P considered more types of accidents to be job-related than did Company O.
(C) The employees of Company P were sick more often than were the employees of Company O.
(D) Several employees of Company O each had more than one job-related accident.
(E) The majority of job-related accidents at Company O involved a single machine.

答案是B选项。
我想问，这道题是前提结论型文章还是因果结构型文章？文中说公司O比公司P的雇员发生事故更少，因此可能性也更小。我的理解应该是事故解释可能性，因为事故发生用过去式had，而且在去年发生的，结论中的可能性是用现在时are。所以是发生事故是原因，发生事故的可能性是结果。文章就应该是前提结论型。
这样一来的话，B选项说公司P考虑的与工作相关事故的类型比公司O要宽，这说明O对事故的定义比较窄，那么O有更少的事故。这个不就是刚好符合文章的前提吗？没有削弱结论（公司O发生可能性比公司P小）啊。。。
但是狒狒把这道题看成因果结构型，即发生事故的可能性小来解释发生的事故少。则B选项就说明不是因为发生的事故的可能性小来解释发生的事故少，正是他因削弱法。

本贴相关题目 GMATPrep-2007E1-CR-63 (MEWB)

相关帖子

更多相关帖子

求解OG11 CR38

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()