ChaseDream

标题: Prep2-cr62，B项我怎么觉得它无关呢？ [打印本页]

作者: 像风一样离去 时间: 2011-3-28 12:07
标题: Prep2-cr62，B项我怎么觉得它无关呢？

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? EB

(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.

(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.

在E和B当中纠结了很久还是选了E，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，就这样排除了。B是不是无关的啊？

作者: 像风一样离去 时间: 2011-3-28 12:07
求解释，谢谢各位。

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-3-28 12:20
This is a weakening question.

B simply says that there is no way to apply the law based on reliable medical method. Thus the law would not be effective.

The law says "if working in the job would entail a 90 percent chance of heart attack." That's AFTER employment. B just says that this law is obsurd since it requires non-existent technology.

作者: 像风一样离去 时间: 2011-3-28 12:40
哈哈，又是你哈！
明白了，我是理解错了原文意思，回去一看题目，果然是after employment的。
谢谢哈，欢迎下次继续光临。

作者: 像风一样离去 时间: 2011-3-28 12:47
整理一下，大家如果有相同问题可以看我的，菜鸟之间会有共同语言的。
if working in the job would entail a 90 percent chance，这句就说明了得心脏病是在工作之后。公司如果认为一个员工在工作之后会得心脏病的概率达到90%，就可以拒绝这个job applicant，如此一来选B就没有问题了。

作者: pennyrun 时间: 2011-7-14 17:05
sdscar大侠~~我觉得E也对啊，政策的目的是要保护雇主和雇员，文章问什么使得这个政策不能生效，就是起不到保护的目的。
E说人们一听说容易引发心脏病，都不来应聘了，这样不是对雇主是一种损失？算不算没起到保护雇主的作用呢?
我觉得我可能关键就是没明白一点，原文中的保护雇主是怎么个保护法？求指教~~~

作者: sdcar2010 时间: 2011-7-14 21:14
The protection for the employer is that they can reject applicants whom they deem have high risk of suffering from heart attack at the job. That's it. No need to worry if this law would make the company better or worse due to other reasons. In CR, focus on the main conclusion and the premise. There is no PERFECT law or regulation in this world.

作者: pennyrun 时间: 2011-7-14 21:18
谢谢大侠~~说得太清楚了！明白了~

作者: jay871750293 时间: 2012-4-22 11:22
sdcar大侠太赞了！！！

作者: miffyhui 时间: 2012-5-6 21:49
up

作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-5-11 20:28
看了这题才知道SD大神简直是无与伦比了，开窍了

作者: 曹元成 时间: 2018-8-24 17:29
真是豁然开朗…

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)