[why?]对天山-4-21有疑义？

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.

以前这里有过讨论http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=24&ID=92803
但是越看越迷糊了~~

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？

请教~~~！

LZ你看第一句，The OLEX Petroleum Company has recently determined that it could cut its refining costs by closing its Grenville refinery 。所以本来他的目的只想是要减少cost。和利润不利润无关。

其次，原文的结论是保持G的开说明O公司关注的是其他而不是profit（这个我觉得因该说是利益，并不是我们平时说的利润）.所以要支持的是公司关注的是他的利益而不是其他。

A说这个公司确实有高的cost但是已经有很多年中等的利润。原文说我关厂是因为他产生高的cost和利润不利润是无关的。

E说关厂会产生高的cost。我本来关厂的目的就是不要产生cost,这个结论就是会产生high cost所以是削弱。

明白了吗？

谢谢你的回答~

我同意文中第一句说的关厂是为了cut cost，与利润无关。

但是文中的结论却又和利润联系了起来：……shows that at OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits.

那为什么不能直接从结论中的profit来削弱呢？？

“为了cut cost而一开始决定要关厂”中的“为了cut cost”我觉得像是提供了一个背景，但背景似乎不一定要牵扯在论述之中啊~

现象：关掉工厂

结论：关掉原因是社会顾虑，而非追求HIGHER PROFIT

削弱：关掉成本太大。E提出一个他因

A错在：即使G地区的厂有MODERATE PROFIT，正象原文说的，closing its Grenville refinery and consolidating all refining at its Tasberg refinery有更高PROFIT。所以关掉它PROFIT上是合理的。所以A无法削弱结论：关掉是社会顾虑。

原文只说了it could cut its refining costs by closing its Grenville refinery and consolidating all refining at its Tasberg refinery. 我并没有把cut cost和“会有更高profit”联系起来。

不过我想起了新东方老师讲过的“GMAT中默认的几种有关”：
1）cost与profit有关，与价格无关
2）sales与revenue有关
3）供需决定价格

如果是按以上“默认”的话，那“cut cost”和“会有更高profit”就不缺桥梁了，那么就可以理解你所说的A错了，是这样吗？
此外，以上三种默认正确吗？

再补充问一句：是不是higher profit和more profit意思不一样？一个是单位成本的profit 一个是总量概念（单位profit*数量）？

天啊，惊见Lawyer！

逻辑区有救了啊！

最近看了很多GWD争议中您的经典分析。来说声感谢！

我也是惊见高人，膜拜一下。。。