ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

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?

正确答案: E

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 3723|回复: 4
打印 上一主题 下一主题

GWD的一题,想不明白!

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2011-10-11 10:43:26 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |正序浏览 |阅读模式
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.

    这题为什么说E而不是D?
    E有点看不懂!可以解释一下吗?

收藏收藏 收藏收藏
5#
发表于 2011-10-12 16:52:26 | 只看该作者
哦哦,醍醐灌顶啊、、、
地板
发表于 2011-10-11 15:02:03 | 只看该作者
不客气, 觉得题目一定要仔细看,与美女共勉
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2011-10-11 14:59:21 | 只看该作者
好的,我明白了。
我的意思弄错了,这里要削弱的是“工厂不关说明更关心社会而不是自身利益”,那么就应该是找出一项来说明工厂实际上还是为了自身利益的。于是就是E。
我弄错了意思,看成要削弱的是“工厂决定不关门”,那么就会选出一项说明工厂不需要关门。错选D。
明白错在哪里了,谢谢!
沙发
发表于 2011-10-11 13:57:08 | 只看该作者
自己瞎解释, 因为e,代表这个工厂关了,还需要支付巨大的成本,由于当地法案所规定的清算费用。所以这个工厂关了,不是因为社会因素考虑,而是自己的成本因素。但是d,说如果工厂都搞到一起,那么所增加的职位会使用曾经在这个公司做过的人被录取的可能性增大,这个我觉得无关。 谢谢
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-30 12:55
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