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.
答案C。我用排除法得到C,其他选项明显无关。但是我觉得C的逻辑很怪异。C说有酗酒问题的人会隐瞒自己的酗酒问题,当然,这样做确实能使雇主的策略落空,但是,这并不能推翻雇主的逻辑呀。如果问题问的是下面哪个答案能使雇主的策略ineffective,那么肯定是C了。可现在,明显驴唇不对马嘴。
|