帮帮我的 还有3天考试呢

aphrodite1990

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?B

(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.
为什么不选D选B啊 我觉得都对啊

mofei23

并不以雇员认为风险有多大作为评判风险的标准。。。

cvtty

D感觉是对雇员不负责……

gedn01

虽然晚了一点，但相信对其他人会有所帮助
就是一个切入点的问题:政府的管理条例实施不好要么是执行力的问题，要么是定义不清楚，界限不清，解释不全...

yigexiaosb

D。。。无关吧。。。。及时他自己不知道，那么公司该不要还是不要~~~

eshopaholic

同意楼上，主体是公司

sdcar2010

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.