扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / OG2017-CR-599
Petrochemical industry officials have said that the extreme pressure exerted on plant managers during the last five years to improve profits by cutting costs has done nothing to impair the industry's ability to operate safely. However, environmentalists contend that the recent rash of serious oil spills and accidents at petrochemical plants is traceable to cost-cutting measures.
Which of the following, if true, would provide the strongest support for the position held by industry officials?
The petrochemical industry benefits if accidents do not occur, since accidents involve risk of employee injury as well as loss of equipment and product.
Petrochemical industry unions recently demanded that additional money be spent on safety and environmental protection measures, but the unions readily abandoned those demands in exchange for job security.
Despite major cutbacks in most other areas of operation, the petrochemical industry has devoted more of its resources to environmental and safety measures in the last five years than in the preceding five years.
There is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.
Both the large fines and the adverse publicity generated by the most recent oil spill have prompted the petrochemical industry to increase the resources devoted to oil-spill prevention.
情景：石化行业官方人员说：降低成本的方案完全没有影响工业的安全性。但是，环境专家说，严重的漏油事件和事故都是因为降低成本方案所导致的。
推理：本题的问题直接问我们如何在加强石化行业官方人员的说法，由于石化行业官方人员给出的说法没有前提，没有推理，所以我们直接找答案即可。
选题方式：略
选项分析：
A选项：如果事故不发生的话，那么石化行业就会获益，因为事故会涉及员工伤害风险和丢失装备和产品。本选项说的是事故发生会损失什么，和石化行业官方人员的说法属于两个不同的步骤。
B选项：石化行业工会现在需求钱被花费在安全和环境保护方面，但是它们很乐意放弃这些需求来换取职位的稳定。本选项可以加强环境专家的说法，因为，如果从业人员放弃了很多安全性措施，那么这个行业应该会更加危险，更容易出现事故。
C选项：Correct. 尽管在很多其它的运营部分节省了很多，但是在过去的五年，石化行业在安全性方面投入了更多的钱。很显然，这可以支持石化行业“降低成本的方案完全没有影响工业的安全性”这一说法。
D选项：有证据可以表明，如果没有减成本的方案，那么最近的由漏油所带来的危害可以被防止。本选项加强的是环境保护专家的说法。
E选项：更多的罚款和由于漏油引发的民众的反感都促使石化行业增加投入“防止漏油”方面的资源。本选项和石化行业官方人员的说法无关。
本题要支持officials，就是要反驳环保人士的”果因推理“，环保人士认为削减成本是漏油和事故高发的原因，C选项的反驳点是：虽然削减了其他运营部门的成本，但是安全这方面的成本没有削减，反而增加了，驳斥了环保人士的观点，也就是支持了officials。
A 没有事故对石油产业有利，跟削减成本和事故多发没有关系
B recently的事情，跟过去5年无关
D 支持环保人士
E 无关
D选项： 倒装
There is evidence (that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.) 后面（）都是evidence的同位语。
同位语为虚拟语气，后面的if省略并倒装。The most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented if cost-cutting measures had not been instituted. 意思是要是（过去5年）没有消减成本，那现在这些安全事故就可以避免了。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论