一道逻辑题

钰剑乘风UID: 3279007

Oregon's Workplace Freedom Act prohibits employers from requiring attendance at meetings where the employer intends to discuss politics or religion.  It also prohibits employers from taking any adverse action against employees who do not attend those meetings.  We need a similar law in Washington, so that employers can't have mandatory meetings in which employees are dissuaded from joining unions.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument?

A) There is no evidence that mandatory meetings wherein employers discuss politics have any effect on union membership.
B) After the passage of Oregon's law, unions reported fewer complaints about mandatory company meetings.
C) The Workplace Freedom Act was part of a national effort primarily addressing religious issues in the workplace.
D) There is already a law in Washington prohibiting mandatory meetings of a political nature.
E) Employers always find ways to circumvent such laws.

答案是D，我选的E
我的想法是：
文章说的是
在OREGON的法案有助于阻碍那些employers有那种不好的行为
所以在washington也要这样的法案，这样就可以阻碍employer的不好的行为
选E的理由是E说就算有这样的法案
雇主不遵守
还是没效果。。。。
所以可以反驳原来的结论。

钰剑乘风UID: 3279007

顶起来