逻辑阅读
Employees of companies that offer corporate fitness programs consistently take fewer sick-days than do employees of companies that do not offer fitness programs. Thus, corporate fitness programs are shown to have a positive effect on the health of a company's workforce.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?
A. Other benefits offered by companies that do not offer corporate fitness programs surpass the benefits offered by companies that do offer such programs.
B. Companies that offer corporate fitness programs attract employees who are more health conscious than the employees of companies that do not offer such programs.
C. The health benefits of a corporate fitness program depend upon the particular makeup of the program.
D. Employees who participate in corporate fitness programs are not measurably less healthy than people who exercise on their own.
E. People who participate in fitness programs not offered by their employees are generally healthier than people who participate in corporate fitness programs.
答案：B
解析：
文章的逻辑在于“公司提供健身—少生病—其他公司也应该提供健身”
反驳方式可以是：
1.否认逻辑，也就是健身和生病无关
2.找他因，不是健身使得员工少生病而是有其他的原因
A.没有提供健身的公司除了健身这一项外，有其他更多的好处------那么人们应该去没健身的公司，没有否认逻辑也没有找他因，错
B.有健身的公司吸引了更多有健康意识的人，这个“他因”不算明显，但是员工少生病与他们的意识有关而不是公司的健身项目的功劳，保留
C. makeup，毫无关系，没有体现任何逻辑，直接排除
D.参加健身项目的人更健康，承认文中逻辑，没有削弱，错
E.参加员工提供的健身的人比公司健身的人更加健康(员工?明明是雇主提供的)，错
综上，选择B
