Critical Reasoning

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.

Answer is (B) as this law would be applicable only if both employees and employers agree to certain fixed terms on calculating the risk of heart attack of a job applicant.

IMO B...What is the OA?

IMO B

+1 B