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