Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 24 Oct 2016, 04:07

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# CR-tough#4

Author Message
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1397
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 280 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2008, 18:31
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
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Director
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 947
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2008, 18:55
Premise1: Law allows companies to reject a job applicant if he has 90% chance for heart attack during job.
Premise2: The presiding judge concurred with law said it is for safety of employees and employers.

(A) The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of employees.
Generic statement. No bearing on case at point.

(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.
Seems Correct. If there is no method to calculate the risk, then how can law be implemented.

(C) Some jobs might involve health risks other than the risk of heart attack.
Other diseases have no bearing on current law.

(D) Employees who have a 90 percent chance of suffering a heart attack may be unaware that their risk is so great.
Implementation of law is not affected because of this.

(E) The number of people applying for jobs at a company might decline if the company, by screening applicants.
Does not explain, how law is affecting this or getting affected because of this.
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1397
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 280 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2008, 19:51
abhijit_sen wrote:
Premise1: Law allows companies to reject a job applicant if he has 90% chance for heart attack during job.
Premise2: The presiding judge concurred with law said it is for safety of employees and employers.

(A) The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of employees.
Generic statement. No bearing on case at point.

(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.
Seems Correct. If there is no method to calculate the risk, then how can law be implemented.

(C) Some jobs might involve health risks other than the risk of heart attack.
Other diseases have no bearing on current law.

(D) Employees who have a 90 percent chance of suffering a heart attack may be unaware that their risk is so great.
Implementation of law is not affected because of this.

(E) The number of people applying for jobs at a company might decline if the company, by screening applicants.
Does not explain, how law is affecting this or getting affected because of this.

Why (A) cannot be true ,Question asked here is also generic:
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?

Im confused between A Vs B
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Director
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 947
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

22 Aug 2008, 06:20
Even if we assume A as true, the fact does not explains why implementation of law will be effective? Law is there or not, this statement will hold.
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 449
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 133 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2008, 04:53
spriya 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.
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

IMO B)

If there is no legally accepted method for calculating risk then employers can take advantage of this ruling.
Intern
Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 22
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2008, 14:28
$$B$$- Without a method to assess risk, the law is useless.

Why this is wrong - The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of employees.

1. What if they don't conflict in this case i.e. its in the best interest for both parties that the job is taken or perhaps not taken.

2. Best interests can be a very vague term when you start to think of the number of scenarios that it can encompass.
Re: CR-tough#4   [#permalink] 28 Aug 2008, 14:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# CR-tough#4

Moderators: WaterFlowsUp, HiLine

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.