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?

1. The Grenville refinery, although it operates at a higher cost than the Tasberg refinery, has nevertheless been moderately profitable for many years.

2. Even though OLEX could consolidate all its refining at the Tasberg plant, doing so at the Grenville plant would not be feasible.

3. The Tasberg refinery is more favorably situated than the Grenville refinery with respect to the major supply routes for raw petroleum.

4. 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.

5. Closure of the Grenville refinery would mean compliance, at enormous cost, with demanding local codes regulating the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites.
                   

标准答案E。

请问：为何D不行？？

D选项是讲“即便迁址，也不表示没有社会责任感（不会导致大量失业）”

E选项是讲“迁址将带来非常大的的法律合规成本”。（但是没有并没有提及refining costs不能降低。）

我觉得E选项虽然有“enormous”这个词，但是仍然无关。

哥们,你对选项的理解错了,你再仔细看看D.

D的意思是说:Grenville 的炼油厂关了,但是Tasberg炼油厂的业务扩大会招募许多Grenville的人.所以,未必会带来大量的失业,所以公司或许考虑的不是社会问题.因此也就推不出:to keep Grenville open shows that at OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits.这个结论了!

你的明白

哥们，我觉得咱俩理解是一样的啊。

题目问的是：

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument given?

而 “the argument” 就是 “OLEX是由于社会责任感超过了对利润的追求才决定不迁址” （Therefore, OLEX’s decision, announced yesterday, to keep Grenville open shows that at OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits.）

而 “the argument” 就是 “OLEX是由于社会责任感超过了对利润的追求才决定不迁址” （Therefore, OLEX’s decision, announced yesterday, to keep Grenville open shows that at OLEX social concerns sometimes outweigh the desire for higher profits.）

题目说OP公司是为了不让工人失业才决定不关闭厂子

问weaken

只要说OP其实是为了避免经济利益损失而并非是处于社会责任心的考虑才不关闭厂子就好了，也就是说OP是个资本家，不愿花钱是真，社会良心只是幌子。就weaken了。

E说，关闭厂子要有一笔很大的费用来清理废弃的厂子，显然OP公司不希望有这样的花费才决定不关闭厂子。可见OP是面上一套，心理一套。

D说一家厂子关了，另外一家厂子会充满被关闭厂子的工人。那这样的话为何不关闭厂子，既没有道德的谴责还能节省成本。其实D是个无关的选项，文章重点是“社会责任心”，这里厂子工人没有什么关系。

tks.

根据大侠们的回答，我又仔细想了一下，D应该错在 to the extent possible 上面，“尽可能地”并不保证“大比例地”。

E的enormouse，可以保证企业必须考虑该要素。

如果D改成“mostly”，E改称“a large sum of”，我就选D。

从 weaken 要weaken文章给出的原因出发，D是比较合适的答案， 但是D总感觉比较模糊，我对它理解有二：

文章：尽到社会责任   

D表达说明O这个厂迁址也是能尽到社会责任的，可以理解为1 无关的（Ｏ不考虑责任）也可理解为 2 Ｏ是用责任当借口，weaken 了Ｏ是有责任心的厂　。

E倒是很标准的它因削弱。