36套里exercise28第9题-逻辑题 T T

老张要高分UID: 3508356

这道题真是百思不得其解- -
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.

为什么我觉得C D E 都可以来佐证这个理论呢
求解答！

McJuvenceUID: 3514633

这种假设题目的正确答案如果取否的话那么材料中结论肯定不成立，这是检验答案的一个标准。
C.其实是引入的外部信息，至于其他公司的人员结构怎么样和材料的论证一点关系都没有，即使竞争者没有雇佣大量的公会员工，那么K公司仍旧可能有歧视嫌疑
D.是一个干扰项，这个回答了K公司这么做的可能原因，但是题目问的是经济学家论证的依据。如果将D取反结论仍旧可能成立，不雇佣公会员工公司成本会不变或增加，还可能有其他原因（比如公会的员工的生产效率更低一些），考虑到收益公司不想雇佣公会员工。
E。你把E取反那么材料的结论肯定就站不住脚了，如果没有雇佣的员工中没有任何人曾经属于公会，那么经济学家的论证就毫无道理了。