[求助]GWD 30-19

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?

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

我选B。我认为B是既然accident不是由safety-sensitive的员工做的，那对safety-sensitive的所有推测均不成立，起到了削弱的作用。

但答案是C，我觉得C是无关选项，与原文关系不紧密。

有哪位高手指点一下？

我当时选的是C，
            

对于B，我认为可能是many 不合适，如果该为 the majority 或者是most 就更好了。我当时就是因为这个才放弃B的

而C选项
        是针对反对原文中“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.”的这样的建议的。

如果员工都可以通过不进行治疗而达到隐藏自己的目的话，那么上述建议无效，从而最终accident得不到改善。