请教一道题。T-4-Q21

lebenkong

T-4-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 1,2000 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?

A.The Grenville refinery, although it operates at a higher cost than the Tasberg refinery, has nevertheless been moderately profitable for many years.

B.Even though OLEX could consolidate all its refining at the Tasberg plant, doing so at the Grenville plant would not be feasible.

C.The Tasberg refinery is more favorably situated than the Grenville refinery with respect to the major supply routes for raw petroleum.

D.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.

E.Closure of the Grenville refinery would mean compliance, at enormous cost, with demanding local codes regulating the cleanup of abandoned industrial sites.

lebenkong

up

gonghao

E is the answer

Conclusion drawn above indicates that OLEX’s decision is due to the social concern instead of profit desire.

E says that if OLEX close the factory in G, it have to deal with the abondoned factory which will have OLEX pay high cost.  So the social concern is not the reason and conclusion is weakened if E stands.

lebenkong

 thanks...

chelsea333

d为什么错

acacia_hong

同上问

D 说明就算关掉G工厂，员工也并不会下岗只是从这个工厂换到另个工厂，那么就不存在social concerns的问题。

原文要削弱不关厂是social concerns大于profit gains，也就是说关了的话就是更关注profit gains而非social concerns了，D只是指出关厂也不是social concerns的表现，是不是就不能直接削弱原文？

acacia_hong

同上问

D 说明就算关掉G工厂，员工也并不会下岗只是从这个工厂换到另个工厂，那么就不存在social concerns的问题。

原文要削弱不关厂是social concerns大于profit gains，也就是说关了的话就是更关注profit gains而非social concerns了，D只是指出关厂也不是social concerns的表现，是不是就不能直接削弱原文？

stickman

E

It is the cost of existing industry

it happened to an American Steel factory in 1980s when it had to  pay humongous compensation and benefits to its employees, which resulted in the go-on of the production even though it sufferred lose in revenue.

lilianbubu

以下是引用acacia_hong在2009-3-13 19:44:00的发言：

同上问

D 说明就算关掉G工厂，员工也并不会下岗只是从这个工厂换到另个工厂，那么就不存在social concerns的问题。

原文要削弱不关厂是social concerns大于profit gains，也就是说关了的话就是更关注profit gains而非social concerns了，D只是指出关厂也不是social concerns的表现，是不是就不能直接削弱原文？

如果G关了，刚好把这些人安放到T，所以关不关对他们不存在social concern问题。所以说明不了什么问题。

要虚弱，我们还是要找到一个点，就是因为profit（or cost)的问题没有关，而不是social concern问题。资本家还是关心钱的问题，才不会因为社会影响不做这些决定，何况关不关都不会引起社会问题。

伊布拉莫维琨