标题: OG10-109 请大家帮忙看一下，论坛里没有相关D选项的讨论 [打印本页] 作者: deityc 时间: 2011-3-2 20:35 标题: OG10-109 请大家帮忙看一下，论坛里没有相关D选项的讨论 109. 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.
不明白D 为什么不对，Og给的解释是:"Choice D concerns employees, not job applicants; its concern is thus outside the scope of the ruling. " 但是正文最后说到了“ saying that it protected both employees and employers. ” 其实就是将 applicants与 employees等同了
作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-3-2 21:30
A simple way to eliminate D is that while the stimulus focuses on job APPLICANT, answer D talks about EMPLOYEE. Are they the same? Of course not. You are an applicant for a MBA degree. Are you a MBA student? No.作者: deityc 时间: 2011-3-2 22:44
但是 题目里面说到“The presiding judge justified the ruling, saying that it protected both employees and employers. ”引入了employees ,最终的结论是和employees 有关 也就是说 job applicant 和employees 是有承接关系的 被雇佣了就是employees 所以题目说对于雇员和雇主都有利
那么D 说的 雇员 意识不到自己有很大的风险患病 就是削弱 结论的作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-3-3 10:49
The law ONLY allows the company to reject applicants, not employees they already have. That's what I meant an applicant is not an employee.