ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
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?

正确答案: B

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 2941|回复: 3
打印 上一主题 下一主题

OG10-109 请大家帮忙看一下,论坛里没有相关D选项的讨论

[复制链接]
跳转到指定楼层
楼主
发表于 2011-3-2 20:35:19 | 只看该作者 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
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

收藏收藏 收藏收藏
沙发
发表于 2011-3-2 21:30:18 | 只看该作者
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.
板凳
 楼主| 发表于 2011-3-2 22:44:56 | 只看该作者
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
地板
发表于 2011-3-3 10:49:38 | 只看该作者
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.

Reading comprehension.
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-9-20 22:29
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部