标题: prep 2—62 [打印本页] 作者: bijinjing 时间: 2010-9-9 09:47 标题: prep 2—62 Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to reject a job applicant if working in the job would entail a 90 percent chance that the applicant would suffer a heart attack. The presiding judge justified the ruling, saying that it protected both employees and employers.
The use of this court ruling as part of the law could not be effective in regulating employment practices if which of the following were true?
(A) The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of employees. (B) No legally accepted methods exist for calculating the risk of a job applicant's having a heart attack as a result of being employed in any particular occupation. (C) Some jobs might involve health risks other than the risk of heart attack. (D) Employees who have a 90 percent chance of suffering a heart attack may be unaware that their risk is so great. (E) The number of people applying for jobs at a company might decline if the company, by screening applicants for risk of heart attack, seemed to suggest that the job entailed high risk of heart attack. B 我在B和E之间纠结很久，我觉得虽然B虽然攻击可行性，但它推理过程，认为更能保护employee和emploer的削弱作者: judydongxueni 时间: 2010-9-9 13:04
e不相关啊
b很对啊。没有相应的考量办法，你怎么区分这个90%呢作者: bijinjing 时间: 2010-9-9 15:10
我说的是E，减少application不是对employer有伤害了吗作者: 像风一样离去 时间: 2011-3-28 12:01
我能不能问一下：as a result of being employed in any particular occupation.难道不是说这个heart attack是由于工作引起的？但是文中说的是job applicant ，so,我觉得B是无关的。