BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Job applicants and heart attacks

Expert replies
by kobel51 » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:24 am
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 the employees.

(B) No legally accepted methods exist for calculating the risk of a job applicant 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.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by Patrick_GMATFix » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:40 am
Be exact when making predictions. Here the right answer will give us a reason that the law will not be effectively enforced (not a reason that the law is bad). So the right answer will show that it is not possible to figure out which applicants have a 90% chance of heart attacks and which don't. I go through the answers in detail in the full solution below (taken from the GMATFix App).

Image

-Patrick
  • Ask me about tutoring.
Join the discussion

by Abhishek009 » Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:41 am
kobel51 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.
Judgement - Companies can reject application of job applicants who have a 90% chance of a heart attack.

Judge - It protects both the Employer and Employee.

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 the employees.

Irrelevant.

(B) No legally accepted methods exist for calculating the risk of a job applicant having a heart attack as a result of being employed in any particular occupation.

If there exists no well accepted legal method for calculating risk of heart attack associated with job in any particular occupation then how is the Judgement effective ?

Looks good.

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

Out of scope.

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

Out of scope and irrelevant as well.

(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.

Irrelevant and Out of scope .


Hence IMO [spoiler](B)[/spoiler]
Abhishek
Join the discussion

by BTGmoderatorAT » Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:24 am
(B) No legally accepted methods exist for calculating the risk of a job applicant having a heart attack as a result of being employed in any particular occupation.


*Sometimes limitations in the types of job you can do may help to keep you healthy, particularly for jobs that are physically strenuous.

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

Does health risks vs. heart attacks have different rulings?
Join the discussion

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:10 am
ardz24 wrote:(B) No legally accepted methods exist for calculating the risk of a job applicant having a heart attack as a result of being employed in any particular occupation.


*Sometimes limitations in the types of job you can do may help to keep you healthy, particularly for jobs that are physically strenuous.

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

Does health risks vs. heart attacks have different rulings?
I'm not certain I understand your question, but you seem to be asking why C is incorrect. We're trying to evaluate the effectiveness of a court ruling that allows companies to reject job applicants who have a 90% chance of having a heart attack. The fact that some jobs pose health risks other than heart attacks isn't terribly relevant here, and if you think about it, how could that not be true? Of course some jobs pose health risks! That doesn't tell us if it's fair/effective/plausible for companies to rule out candidates because there's supposedly a 90% chance a candidate would suffer a heart attack.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Join the discussion