prep-2-62搜索了一下，可还是不太懂

rainbowmanutd

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.




选B，可是e为啥不对呢~可能会看起来需要承担心脏病的风险，也会 not effective啊

InfiniteAlex

thanks a lot

jessiecg

恩 很有道理。

lxw19

谢谢ls，可我还是不太明白呀=。=
E的意思也是这个方法不可行啊，因为会导致申请人减少、
E和B的目的一样呀，都是说方法不可行啊

-- by 会员 rainbowmanutd (2010/3/19 11:25:31)

如果这道削弱题你认为选E的话，那么结论是不是应该说员工申请人数增加呢？~~而原文根本没有提到这方面的事情啊

rainbowmanutd

谢谢ls，可我还是不太明白呀=。=
E的意思也是这个方法不可行啊，因为会导致申请人减少、
E和B的目的一样呀，都是说方法不可行啊

lxw19

本题为削弱题

E是无关选项~~employment practices 是否effective，在这里衡量的标准就是B选项~~现今并不存在能够衡量申请人是否有患有心脏病风险的方法~~这样的话，employment practices 就不可行了

E说的是因为这一行动会导致公司的员工减少~~而公司的员工减少并不是本文要说的主题，是无关选项~~