OG-109

OG 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.

答案(B).

不明白OG对choice (A) 、choice(C)的解释：Choice A suggests that the judge’s justification for the ruling would be unavailable in many situations but not that the ruling itself would be ineffective. Choice C raises the possibility that there might be further rulings of a similar nature in the future.

帮忙解释一下OG是什么意思，谢谢！

choice C: the risk of heart attack is part of health risks. if the ruling is applicable, more rulings should be defined to cover health risks other than only heart attack.  so, there might be further ruling of a similar nature in the future.

不知道说的对不对？

I also don't understand what does it mean.

A  Conflict issue---out of scope

C  other risk attack--out of scope

B in scope.. Ans B.

for the explantation.. hope somebody NN explain to Lucy. i am not sure !!!

同意bolodong。

另外choice(A)能不能这样理解：

choice(A)说：The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of employees。employers的利益总是跟employees的利益发生冲突，所以OG说：the judge’s justification for the ruling（saying that it protected both employees and employers） would be unavailable in many situations 。

就是说因为两者的利益总是有冲突，所以这样的理由－既保护employers又保护employees－是站不住脚的。

A根本就是无关啊,楼主不用太费神

court and company 认为当90%的人有可能的时候,就应该rejected

B直接对论据削弱,如果90%都无从谈起,那么又怎么能这样认为呢.

个人觉得不要把错误选项的解释带到题目中去看,刚才顺着你的思路去想,很头疼...

没关系