GWD30Q19

ssxxtt27

B

1.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.
   
   E为什么不行？用另外一个原因去解释风险的产生，WEAKEN了文中提出的方法。。。我做WEAKEN题经常选这样的选项。。。为什么呢。。。是不是我思路有问题？
   

sdcar2010

Premise: workers with previous drinking problem is more prone to accidents than worker with no previous drinking problems.

Conclusion: 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.

That is a pretty drastic measure.  Let's see if any of the answer choice would ruin this otherwise foolproof safety measure. (C) says that workers might lie about their drinking problem and can still remain on the job. Then based on the premise, these liars would be accident prone! So drastic measure, once installed, might not lead to reduction of accidents.  

(C) weakens the arugment.

E is irrelevant to the discussion because it is not related to PERSONS who operate the machines.

ssxxtt27

Premise: workers with previous drinking problem is more prone to accidents than worker with no previous drinking problems.

Conclusion: 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.

That is a pretty drastic measure.  Let's see if any of the answer choice would ruin this otherwise foolproof safety measure. (C) says that workers might lie about their drinking problem and can still remain on the job. Then based on the premise, these liars would be accident prone! So drastic measure, once installed, might not lead to reduction of accidents.  

(C) weakens the arugment.

E is irrelevant to the discussion because it is not related to PERSONS who operate the machines.

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/4/17 21:16:47)

醍醐灌顶 解释的很好 可能我原来做题有些错误的习惯吧 现实中的CR和我自己理解的看来有些出入 谢谢你的热心解答

teddybearj4

sdcar NN，I wonder why (D) is wrong? is it irrelevant?

IMO, the choice  is required to undermine the measurement can not enable the employers to reduce the risk of accidence.

i think (D)  rise another factor contribute to the accident.

sdcar2010

D) supports the passage, not weakens it.

teddybearj4

今天脑袋清醒一点来看看才发现我这问题问的……，懂了呀！发现GWD的CR真的是，我被他绕两圈就分不清东南西北了！
谢谢sdcar NN热心回答我的这种傻问题！