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?
比如下面的例子,答案是C,可是我觉得E也可以解释啊,说明是有别的原因。 GWD30-Q19: 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?
Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.
Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.
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.
People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.
Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error. 谁能帮我解答一下啊?谢谢啦!
Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error.
这个选项中的some具体是多少?这个量的定义很模糊,所以不能说明问题。假设总共有100起事故,如果有10起事是由设备导致的,我也可以说some accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error. 但是,其实更多的(90起)事故是还是人为导致的。所以无法对原文结论构成削弱。
我跟你一样的选了B。不过我现在反反复复看了很多遍。觉得问题所在是第一句话的前提上。所以整段话的前提都是为了实现Industrial accidents are more common when some of the people in safety-sensitive jobs have drinking problems than when none do.这个目标。所以非安全敏感地带只能属于无关项了。 E也是一样,out of scope。
anyway,C也不是个什么好选项。假设他们确实hide了。但是并不影响他们的禁令。比如20个喝酒的。19个hide。不禁和禁还相差了一个人。总是对预防由好处的。而且题目问的是undermine the argument,而并非问的是if true, the company will not reach their goal。两者是不一样的。前者是需要整段话的逻辑。反正我觉得这个题愤懑