Critical Reasoning

goelmohit2002 wrote:Hi All,

In the below question(OG-10, Q 109), the answer is "B". I am able to narrow down to A and B but not able to understand what is wrong with A. Can somebody please help me understand why "A" is wrong ?

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.

This use of his 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.

Thanks
Mohit

Ian Stewart wrote:

goelmohit2002 wrote: 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.

This use of his 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.

It's important to recognize the scope of the question. The question is asking you to identify a reason why the ruling might not be effective in practice. That employers and employees have different interests has nothing to do with whether a law can be applied effectively, so A is not relevant here. If, however, it is impossible to tell, to the satisfaction of a court, whether a person has a 90% risk of heart attack, then there would never be a situation where a law could be applied that was based on a 90% threshold.

goelmohit2002 wrote:

Ian Stewart wrote:

goelmohit2002 wrote: 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.

This use of his 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.

It's important to recognize the scope of the question. The question is asking you to identify a reason why the ruling might not be effective in practice. That employers and employees have different interests has nothing to do with whether a law can be applied effectively, so A is not relevant here. If, however, it is impossible to tell, to the satisfaction of a court, whether a person has a 90% risk of heart attack, then there would never be a situation where a law could be applied that was based on a 90% threshold.

Hi Ian,

Yes I agree for "B". But what is wrong in this school of thought for "A".

1. Let's say Bill is an employer
2. Bill needs to fill a vacancy that may result in almost surely heart attacks.
3. But that vacancy is very critical to Bill's organization.
4. So that vacancy cannot be scrapped.
5. Since only bill knows that there are chances of heart attack...so he will not tell the same to any perspective candidates.

In the above scenario isn't law ineffective ?

Please tell what I am missing here.

Thanks
Mohit

(A) The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of employees.