GWD30-19

ookkla

GWD-30-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?

 

1. Some companies place employees who are being treated for drinking problems in residential programs and allow them several weeks of paid sick leave.
2. Many accidents in the workplace are the result of errors by employees who do not hold safety-sensitive jobs.
3. 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.
4. People who hold safety-sensitive jobs are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.
5. Some industrial accidents are caused by equipment failure rather than by employee error.

    

答案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.

所以weaken了[結論to reduce the risk of accidents ]   所以是正確答案

 

D選項:

People (who hold safety-sensitive jobs) are subject to stresses that can exacerbate any personal problems they may have, including drinking problems.

這個選項是weaken了[drinking problems是safety-sensitive jobs的原因]這回事

選項D一開始以為是因果顛倒
                 就選錯了

 

請問一下各位NN們

我這樣理解對嗎??

 

 

wangtsong

enlarge it.

ciscogeek

为什么不选B呢？请NN

selftaught

B, 无关

C, 由于employee怕失业, 不会寻求治疗, 所以employer达不到最终减少事故目的. 措施会导致另一种结果来weaken

D, stress使坏习惯恶化,可以说与结论无直接关系

不知道理解对不对?

atc

联系一下中国的小煤窑：为什么每次出事都不及时上报，因为一报就给关啦！所以能瞒就瞒！

lucyliu

我觉得B不是无关啊，选B，因为结论是为了减少事故，禁止治疗过酗酒问题的工人hoilding a safety-sensitive job,那就是可以干非安全敏感性高的工作了，（老外的思维是不可能人家爱喝酒就什么工作都不让人干吧，那是歧视，违法的，但选择岗位是允许的。）如果事故大部分是由于非安全敏感性高的工作岗位的工人造成的呢？就weaken了这个结论！

gonghao

文章结论说：

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.

因为喝酒的人比不喝酒的人更容易犯错误，雇主为了降低风险不应该招募任何有过酗酒治疗的人来主持安全敏感的工作。

B无关，

文章没有讨论那些不喝酒的人犯的错误，也没有否定这些人不犯错误。也没有说所有的错误都是酗酒的人犯的。文章更没有把工作者分为安全工作的工作者和非安全敏感岗位的工作者。B这样的叙述本身，文章并未否定，但是并不能削弱文章的结论。即使那些非安全敏感岗位的工作者犯的错误也不少，但者并不影响雇主不去雇佣那些有酗酒历史的雇员来做安全敏感的工作。因为雇主的理由充分，喝酒的人犯错就是多。

所以讨论范围不同。因此B无关

hopefaith001

顶。我也觉得D是因果颠倒了。怎么才能排除D呢？谁来给讲一下啊~~~~~！！！

shelleyzheng

我觉得D是SUPPORT 结论 结论是禁止使用DRINKING PROBLEM 的人在SECUREITY-SENSITVE 的岗位, 如果D, 这种工作会恶化病情,当做不能使用有这种病的人啊

五月十三

以下是引用hopefaith001在2008-6-10 12:38:00的发言：

顶。我也觉得D是因果颠倒了。怎么才能排除D呢？谁来给讲一下啊~~~~~！！！

同问。