求助~~~~~~~~!!!!!

紫月星竹cxUID: 2993353

An economist concluded that Kregg Company
deliberately discriminated against people with a
history of union affiliation in hiring workers for its
new plant. The economist's evidence is that, of the
1,500 people hired to work at the new plant, only 100
had ever belonged to a labor union, whereas in Kregg
Company's older plants, a much higher proportion of
workers have a history of union affiliation.

9. Which of the following is an assumption on which
the economist's argument depends?   
(A) None of the people with a history of union
affiliation who were hired to work at the new
plant were union organizers.
(B) Applicants for jobs at the new plant were not
asked by Kregg's recruiters whether they had
ever belonged to a labor union.
(C) In the plants of some of Kregg's competitors, the
workforce consists predominantly of union
members.   
(D) The company believes that the cost of running
the new plant will be lower if labor unions are
not represented in the workforce.   
(E) The pool of potential candidates for jobs at the
new plant included some people, in addition to
those Kregg hired, with a history of union
affiliation.


为嘛是D？？

欧液UID: 3149019

同等解答。。。怎么看都应该是E吧。。。。 答案改正还跳过了这题 把前后两题都改正了

紫月星竹cxUID: 2993353

2# 欧液 我也觉得是E啊~~感觉D没有什么道理。

dandelionttUID: 2852417

作者说这个公司歧视有union affiliation的人，接着给出了evidence：
new plant中有union affiliation的人的人为100/1500，而old plant的比例比这里高。
如果这个证据足够证明公司歧视union affiliation的人，那么必然有一个前提，就是new plant好于old plant。

songchunweiUID: 3090147

4# dandeliontt
额……怎么感觉还是选E，如果能用数字说明歧视的话，如果说不歧视就一定这个比例高，如何能比例高，就是要招到更多的union affiliation 的人啊，要能招到这样的人，当然应聘者中就要有这样的人才行啊，如果应聘者中这些人都已经被招聘了就不能说明是歧视了啊
不知理解对否