[讨论]Prep2 CR- 62

62.        (33903-!-item-!-188;#058&007604)

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.

I understand why B is correct. But how about E?? --- If less people apply for the job, is that also a kind of LESS "effective in regulating employment
practices"??