·请教一道逻辑题

jojobqq

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.

wdt_880326

题目说的是employee cause accident的问题，E答非所问了~

eliasfan

But I want to know  why not choose E

sdcar2010

Premise: workers with previous drinking problem is more prone to accidents than worker with no previous drinking problems.

Conclusion: 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.

That is a pretty drastic measure.  Let's see if any of the answer choice would ruin this otherwise foolproof safety measure. (C) says that workers might lie about their drinking problem and can still remain on the job. Then based on the premise, these liars would be accident prone! So drastic measure, once installed, might not lead to reduction of accidents.  

(C) weakens the arugment.