Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to reject

B is ok.
seems OG problem. its been long time, actually sice joining the Gmat Club, that i really have not focused on OG problems.

(A) out of scope
(B) make sense. if there is no legall and accepted methods exist to do so, then it ruling doesnot work. it creats problem i detecting 90% chance of heart attack.
(C) irrelavat
(D) Employee's awareness doesnot matter. if there is a method calculating 90% chance of having heart attack, then it doesot hiders the judge's rulling to be effective.
(E) irrelavat and out of scope.

Reject Job applicant ---------> If there is a 90 percent chance of Heart attack ( working in the Organisation)

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. - Suggests it is mutually beneficial to both the Employers and 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.

If this statement is true the entire reasoning falls apart.

(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. - Irrelevant we are talking about new applicants.

(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.

Hence IMHO (B) is undoubtedly the best.

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.

Type- Weaken
Boil it down - Law that allows companies to reject a job applicant if working in the job would entail 90% chance of heart attack has protected both employees and employers
Pre-thinking - Is there are legally accepted standard to determine the risk


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. Irrelevant
(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.
Correct - then this law might be used unfairly against job applicants
(C) Some jobs might involve health risks other than the risk of heart attack. Irrelevant
(D) Employees who have a 90 percent chance of suffering a heart attack may be unaware that their risk is so great. Irrelevant
(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

Answer B

Hi all, Though option B is the right answer with indubitable explanation, I would like to understand why option E is irrelevant. Because for the employer to access whether a job would entail 90% of heart attack, the employer need to screen applicants for heart problem. Without this screening it is not possible for employer to entail the probability of heart attack. This behaviour on part of the employer would lead to drop in number of applications for the job. This works against the court's intension of protecting employers. Isn't it? Please explain.

I think apart from above 2 explanations given by abhimahna , another explanation could be as following:-

Question stem says :- 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?

Keyword in Question stem is “EFFECTIVE” .

If Employer honestly reveals the heart attack risk involved in job then effectiveness will be achieved in protecting both Employers & Employees. While question stem reads " could not be effective".

Choice B says that if there is no legal method at all to calculate risk then how can one declare or assess risk of heart attack. If one can not assess or detect risk , ruling could not be effective in regulating employment practices.

ChiranjeevSingh :- Please validate my reasoning whether it is correct.

Premise:

Court allowed Companies to reject applicant who has a higher chance of getting a heart attack.

Conclusion(from the part of the question):

Court's decision could not be effective for rejecting applicant

Assumption:
To reject applicant ,higher chance of getting a heart attack is not a useful/effective measure

Answer Choice (B) Strengthened the assumption above .

Correct Answer (B)

The stem provides some context and a judgement. The factset is that a recent ruling was passed to allow companies to reject applicants who would have a 90% chance of a heart attack if they were to work in the companies' given job.

This fact and ruling assumes that the companies can actually detect these applicants otherwise the ruling is useless.

Therefore, for the ruling to be effective, companies must be able to detect job applicants who would hit the 90% threshold.

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 is incorrect because the best interests of employees or employers have nothing to do with the effectiveness of detecting a heart attack.
B is correct because it presents a fatal flaw in the effectiveness. If no accepted method exists for calculating the risk of a person having a heart attack then how can the employers enforce the ruling? They cant. B is correct.

C is not conducive to the effectiveness of the ruling.
D is exactly why the ruling was introduced, but it doesn't help evaluate the effectiveness of the ruling
E is incorrect because the number of applicants isn't relevant to the effectiveness of the ruling

The right answer here is B. E is kind of tempting, and is the trap answer here. One of the key things you wanna look out for is the specifics of the statement in the conclusion. We are looking for a statement that suggests that this rule would not help regulate employment. Well if people choose not to apply because there is some stated risk, this is in effect, a form of indirect regulation. So ultimately, it actually kind of strengthens the conclusion.

- Matoo

VeritasKarishma - I have a query on the argument. can you please help in clarifying it ?

Argument says - 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.

My query - If current law already allows companies to reject a job applicant, what ruling court has passed. I am not getting this part.

Note that laws are generic. They need to be interpreted by the court on case to case basis. Future cases can refer to previous rulings if they are applicable in their own cases too.

For example, the law may say that safety of both parties needs to be ensured before any hiring. Now a judge needs to rule whether "a 90% chance of applicant's heart attack" falls under this law.

The question is why this ruling may not be effective in regulating employment practices? Why can't this ruling become a part of hiring criteria?

(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.

If there is no legally acceptable method of calculating the risk of heart attack of a candidate, how can this ruling be useful? A company may reject an applicant on the premise that his risk of heart attack in the job is above 90% but if this case comes to court, there is no legally acceptable method to prove that the candidate's risk is above 90%. Then the law is meaningless. Hence, this law cannot become a part of hiring criteria.

This is correct.

Dear Team,
I have done the question correctly.
I request you to share the detailed explanation of this question so that I can check if my process is correct in answering the question.
Since the question belongs to OG 2010, I tried to find out the official answer explanation but failed on internet.
Please help me out.
Thanks in advance
Priyanshu

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.