请教OG-109

newsunshine

(A) The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of employees opposes  "the presiding judge justified the ruling, saying that it protected both employees and employers", but have nothing to do with "the law could not be effective in regulating employment practices".

As to (E), i think, if E is true, it refers to a bad situation results from the ruling,  but not tells the ruling is not effective in employment practies.  In fact, the ruling still works although the job application decreases.

KATIEUS

bennent

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?

    could not be effective in 修改雇用方式

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.

法庭决议一项法律可以允许公司可以拒绝工作申请人  如果应征者因工作导致90%的机率得心脏病的话

    

    

题目是要问the law could not be effective所以找一个去支持法律定订没有效果的选项

    

    

(A) The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of employees.与法律无关

    

(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.没有方法可以确定怎样计算任何一个职位导致90%的心脏病风险  法律规定无效  支持  取非 法律有效可以判定90%风险

    

    

(C) Some jobs might involve health risks other than the risk of heart attack.无关

    

(D) Employees who have a 90 percent chance of suffering a heart attack may be unaware未察觉 that their risk is so great.跟法律无关

    

(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.这里讲的是这份工作确定会得心脏病 所以人家不申请 无关

    

现在回  前辈们都不知道飞哪去了

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-5-17 20:15:25编辑过]

huihui_717

我喜欢这种彩色的方式解题，简明易懂，说出关键 ，多谢多谢bennent