GWD30-Q19 drinking problem 的解释

GMU

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.

Answer： C

看了很多人的讨论，答案是选C，但感觉没有人把选C的原因解释透彻。

以下纯属个人观点：这个题目背后其实是一个恶性循环

有drinking problem的人比没有的会引起更多的事故。研究又发现，即使经过了治疗，那些曾经有drinking problem的人还是会比从没有drinking problem的人引起更多的事故。于是，employer应该只顾从来没有drinking problem的人。 这个结论是错误的！！！ 为什么？ 因为这个法案一通过，便会降低那些有drinking problem的人去seek treatment的incentive

对于目前仍然在职，并且有drinking problem的人，他们就会选择隐瞒自己有drinking problem的事实，而不是去选择治疗。因为不管你治不治疗都会被开除，所以还不如一直瞒着。
如果是这样的话，便会加剧事故发生的几率。很明显，经过治疗的员工比仍然有着drinking problem的人安全的多。综上所述，题目中得出的结论在某种程度上反而会加重了事故的发生

希望NN们指点

GMU

自己顶一个

期期啦啦

LZ好样的！