ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
查看: 1390|回复: 2
打印 上一主题 下一主题

大全1-6

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2009-3-30 23:46:00 | 只看该作者

大全1-6

6.     A law requiring companies to offer employees unpaid time off to care for their children will harm the economic competitiveness of our nation’s businesses. Companies must be free to set their own employment policies without mandated parental-leave regulations.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion of the argument above?

(A) A parental-leave law will serve to strengthen the family as a social institution in this country.

(B) Many businesses in this country already offer employees some form of parental leave.

(C) Some of the countries with the most economically competitive businesses have strong parental-leave regulations.

(D) Only companies with one hundred or more employees would be subject to the proposed parental-leave law.

 (E) In most polls, a majority of citizens say they favor passage of a parental-leave law.

这题谁告诉我Companies must be free to set their own employment policies without mandated parental-leave regulations.到底什么意思呢?怎么感觉和前面一句话是相反的观点?请教大牛!!!

沙发
发表于 2009-3-31 23:25:00 | 只看该作者

我还没牛起来呢,呵呵……以下愚见

各公司可以自由规定他们自己的雇佣政策,不需要强制的parental-leave规定。

前面一句说(强制要求公司允许父母有unpaid time off去照顾孩子的)法律会伤害国家商业的经济竞争力。后面一句话在站前面一句的立场上说,自由决定……

板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2009-4-1 13:09:00 | 只看该作者

谢了,知道了,其实意思是公司因该自由决定产假而不是由政府制定。郁闷做的时候感觉怪怪的!

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-13 05:09
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部