Court ruling

Expert replies

goelmohit2002: Legendary Member; Posts: 1799; Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 amFollowed by: 2 members; Thanked: 36 times

by goelmohit2002 » Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:17 am

Hi All,

In the below question(OG-10, Q 109), the answer is [spoiler]"B"[/spoiler]. Can someone please help me understand what OG says to kick out A ?

OG says

"Choice A suggests that the judge's justification for the ruling itself would be unavailable in many situations but not that the ruling itself would be ineffective."

============================================

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

Like this post

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:17 am

ssmiles08: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 472; Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:54 pm; Thanked: 56 times

by ssmiles08 » Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:36 am

IMO it is not A b/c the best interest of either party doesn't mean that they want to be protected. Either way, it doesn't stop them from regulating employment practices.

B) If there is no legal way of calculating the risk, then the regulating the law comes into question b/c everyone might have a different standard of risk which may fall above or below that 90%.

Like this post

goelmohit2002: Legendary Member; Posts: 1799; Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 amFollowed by: 2 members; Thanked: 36 times

by goelmohit2002 » Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:40 am

Thanks. Can you please help me understand what OG want to say for kicking out A. I am not able to decrypt what OG mean to say here.

OG says:

"choice A suggests that the judge's justification for the ruling itself would be unavailable in many situations but not that the ruling itself would be ineffective."

Like this post

ssmiles08: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 472; Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:54 pm; Thanked: 56 times

by ssmiles08 » Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:56 am

goelmohit2002 wrote:Thanks. Can you please help me understand what OG want to say for kicking out A. I am not able to decrypt what OG mean to say here.

OG says:

"choice A suggests that the judge's justification for the ruling itself would be unavailable in many situations but not that the ruling itself would be ineffective."

I think what it says here is that, there might come a discrepancy b/w the employer and employee on who's best interest the law is really in favor of and who it is really protecting.

The justification of this rule would not be available unless they go and battle it out in court, but the justification wouldnot make any exceptions to the rule and therefore they will still have to abide by the rule no matter what.

I hope that made sense

Like this post

GMAT/MBA Expert

Stacey Koprince: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 2228; Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pmFollowed by: 694 members; Location: Montreal, Canada; Thanked: 639 times; GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:22 am

Received a PM asking me to respond.

Court ruled that companies can reject applicant if there's a 90% chance applicant would suffer heart attack from that job.

Justification for the ruling: protected both employees and employers.

Assumptions: the employees and the employers both need protecting. The ruling actually does protect both from something bad.

Question: we could not use this ruling if something else were true. What is that thing? (Note that the question says "the ruling... could not be effective" not just "might not be as effective" - so the ruling could never be justified if the correct answer were true.)

A. best interests of employers often not the same thing as best interests of employees.

Is it always true that their best interests aren't the same? Not according to this choice - it's just often true. So sometimes the best interests are actually the same. In those cases, the ruling could still be effective. Because the question asked us to find a circumstance that meant the ruling could not (ever) be effective, this one doesn't work.

In terms of how OG worded the explanation, they're saying that although there are some situations (according to choice A) where this ruling would not be effective (because the ruling assumes that you can take into account the best interests of both at the same time), there are still times when the ruling would be effective (because sometimes you really can take into account the best interests of both at the same time).

Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me

Like this post

goelmohit2002: Legendary Member; Posts: 1799; Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 amFollowed by: 2 members; Thanked: 36 times

by goelmohit2002 » Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:04 pm

Thanks stacey for awesome explanation!!!!

Like this post

nikhilkatira: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 318; Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 3:55 am; Thanked: 12 times

by nikhilkatira » Sat Jun 05, 2010 5:32 am

Stacey Koprince wrote:Received a PM asking me to respond.

Court ruled that companies can reject applicant if there's a 90% chance applicant would suffer heart attack from that job.

Justification for the ruling: protected both employees and employers.

Assumptions: the employees and the employers both need protecting. The ruling actually does protect both from something bad.

Question: we could not use this ruling if something else were true. What is that thing? (Note that the question says "the ruling... could not be effective" not just "might not be as effective" - so the ruling could never be justified if the correct answer were true.)

A. best interests of employers often not the same thing as best interests of employees.

Is it always true that their best interests aren't the same? Not according to this choice - it's just often true. So sometimes the best interests are actually the same. In those cases, the ruling could still be effective. Because the question asked us to find a circumstance that meant the ruling could not (ever) be effective, this one doesn't work.

In terms of how OG worded the explanation, they're saying that although there are some situations (according to choice A) where this ruling would not be effective (because the ruling assumes that you can take into account the best interests of both at the same time), there are still times when the ruling would be effective (because sometimes you really can take into account the best interests of both at the same time).

Gr8 explanation.

the best part is the thought process for eliminating the options.

Best,
Nikhil H. Katira

Like this post

Post new topic Post Reply

• Page 1 of 1

GMAT Course Reviews

560 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (560 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review