天山4-Q21 (没找到有讨论过)

sangchangtw

The OLEX Petroleum Company has recentlydetermined that it could cut its refining costs by closing itsGrenville refinery and consolidating all refining at its Tasbergrefinery. 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 somtimes outweigh the desire for higher profits.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermine the argument given?

(A) The Grenville refinery, although it operates at a higher cost than the Tasberg refinery, has nevertheless been moderatly profitably 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 abondaned industrial sites.
Ans: E


为什么A不对呢:  我对A的理解昰:G虽然成本高但是仍有些profit
如果是这样 -->代表G不关厂的原因是因为profit-->weaken 作者 的立场"O公司不关G厂是因为重视社会concern 不单以自己的profit为考虑"

还有E, 除了"at enormous cost"我想可以weaken 外 其时整句我不是很懂 请只点一下该选项为什么对吧~谢谢