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

 It is currently 23 Oct 2016, 09:16

### 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

# Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 126
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 May 2005, 04:20
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

79% (02:12) correct 21% (01:47) wrong based on 215 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by Vyshak on 18 Jun 2016, 05:20, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 904
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 47 [0], given: 0

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 May 2005, 08:52
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Go with (B).

If there is no method to calculate the heart risk, then law would not be effective.
VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1493
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 93 [0], given: 0

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 May 2005, 13:56
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.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10251
Followers: 857

Kudos [?]: 187 [0], given: 0

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Sep 2014, 02:38
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.
Manager
Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Posts: 86
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 98

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2015, 09:58
I will go with B.

Because there is no legal method available, possibly employers can use heart attack possibility to discriminate against employees. Hence it effectively weakens the argument
_________________

Cheers!
-----------------------------
Please give kudos if you think it is worth it !

Intern
Joined: 11 Mar 2015
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 3

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2015, 06:37
I will go with B. (it only makes sense)

Though, any expert who can verify if our answer is correct?
Math Forum Moderator
Status: Quant & Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 1614
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Followers: 56

Kudos [?]: 399 [1] , given: 271

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jun 2015, 10:08
1
KUDOS
wunderbar03 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.

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.
_________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum

Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2014
Posts: 58
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 2

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jun 2015, 01:49
I go with B too. Other choices are out of scope.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10251
Followers: 857

Kudos [?]: 187 [0], given: 0

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jun 2016, 02:39
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.
Math Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 814
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 34

Kudos [?]: 293 [0], given: 57

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2016, 21:15
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

_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Intern
Joined: 03 Apr 2016
Posts: 32
Location: India
GMAT 1: 580 Q43 V27
GRE 1: 311 Q160 V151
WE: Design (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 38

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2016, 23:43
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.
Director
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 808
Location: India
GMAT 1: 670 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.65
WE: Brand Management (Consumer Electronics)
Followers: 24

Kudos [?]: 183 [0], given: 24

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2016, 01:07
balaji4799 wrote:
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.

E is wrong because of two reasons :

1. It says the number might decline. Notice the word MIGHT. hence, We are not sure whether it will decline.
2. Even if the number of applicants decline it may happen that this time we are going to get applicants which are not at any risk. So, it might actually help employers to get the desired applicant easily. hence, E is wrong.
_________________

Thanks.

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to   [#permalink] 25 Sep 2016, 01:07
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
12 After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and 13 23 Jul 2014, 17:06
Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to 12 07 Dec 2011, 01:36
1 Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer 8 28 May 2008, 19:52
Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer 0 26 Jul 2007, 16:11
When a company refuses to allow other companies to produce 10 29 Dec 2006, 00:15
Display posts from previous: Sort by