本贴相关题目 GMATPrep-2007E2-CR-62 (UVFO)

00:00:00

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?

AThe best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of employees.
BNo 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.
CSome jobs might involve health risks other than the risk of heart attack.
DEmployees who have a 90 percent chance of suffering a heart attack may be unaware that their risk is so great.
EThe 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.

正确答案: B

Prep2-62

[复制链接]

286的幸福观

楼主

发表于 2008-12-22 09:53:00 | 显示全部楼层

法院允许公司在工作要承担90%会引起心脏病的条件下拒绝一个工作申请，然后有人说这是有利于雇主和雇员双方的，结论是这样的裁定是没有效率的。红色部分是这个裁定的目的，但是如果B条件不成立，无法判断是否某工作能引发高心脏病风险，同时有利于雇主和雇员就是扯淡了，因为雇主有可能以此为借口（因为无合法方法判断）来拒绝申请者。

E说应试人数会因为screening applicants for risk of heart attack而下降，这只是ruling可能造成的一个结果，并没有去质疑ruling的有效性！所谓effective指的是是否能够达到预期的目的，也就是同时有利于雇主和雇员