请教逻辑狗中一道GWD原题

大荣

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.    eople 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.

GWD的答案是C。为什么E不对？如果酗酒者中的事故起因有一部分是设备故障引起的，那禁止酗酒者工作是不是就无法到达降低事故风险的目的，会有削弱作用呢？麻烦谁能讲解一下。

冷咖啡

请注意some，一般有some的选项都需要谨慎

E 说一些是由机器引起的。
那么老板们开除那些酗酒的，还是能降低 “另一些” 因为工人酗酒的问题而引发的事故，所以不能削弱原结论

liying731

题干是说,因为那些酗酒的人比普通的人有更多问题(潜在的风险),因此在雇佣人做那些对安全很敏感的职位时（对安全系数要求较高的职位）,应该不要雇佣那些酗酒的人.
主干的逻辑推理过程：酗酒->高危->雇主防范风险因此不雇佣。
这一推论的前提是，雇主在能够分辨出哪些人有酗酒的恶习。也就是说，这些人会如实告诉雇主他们酗酒。
问削弱。
如果这些人隐瞒，那雇主根本无从知道啊。所以作者的推论根本没有事实依据。
我开始也选E，正如楼上说的，如果是用SOME的话，理论是很站不住脚的。因为1%也可以说是SOME，实际上他的影响面很小。

大荣

谢谢ls两位

尘未

文中的结论是，雇主对于高危工作应该禁止who has  ever been “treated” for a drinking problem。 C选项： 由于担心失去工作，有酗酒问题的人try instead to conceal their problem，而不是去"treat”，这样的话，雇主根据是否treat是无法判断的，因此最强削弱。

E选项讨论的是事故非人为因素的情况，而本题讨论的是人为原因造成的事故中，dringking对工作的影响，属于讨论区域转移。

另外同ls几位，some是多少？很含糊，通常选项中带有some的都是错误选项。