The OLEX Petroleum Company has recently determined that it could cut its refining costs by closing its Grenville refinery and consolidating all refining at its Tasberg refinery. 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
煩請各位大大看我對 A D E 的解讀，有哪些錯誤啦？謝謝！！
A) G 工廠雖然運作成本比 T 還高，這麼多年來，其實還能賺取微薄利潤。
=> 所以說讓 G 工廠繼續，不是因為考慮到人，是因為雖然微薄，但至少能多賺點利潤。 WEAKEN
D) G 工廠如果關閉的話，那原本在 G 的員工就會部分移到 T 上班。
=>人員的問題可能會比較輕微啦，但還是有 social concern 的因素存在，無法有力 WEAKEN
E) G 工廠的關閉只是要順從當地法規。
=> 這跟social concern 和 profit 根本無關啊！
更何況既然法規都訂了，那他憑什麼說不關就不關，難道是說social 比公司犯法來的更重要，降豈不是 support 了嗎？
