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

It is currently 30 Jul 2015, 10:39
GMAT Club Tests

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 128
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 0

Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink] New post 01 May 2005, 03:20
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

88% (02:17) correct 12% (01:57) wrong based on 86 sessions
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.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 04 Jul 2004
Posts: 905
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 01 May 2005, 07:52
Go with (B).

If there is no method to calculate the heart risk, then law would not be effective.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1494
Followers: 6

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

Re: CR Court Law [#permalink] New post 01 May 2005, 12:56
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
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 4593
Followers: 491

Kudos [?]: 100 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink] New post 13 Sep 2014, 01:38
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Posts: 81
Concentration: Leadership, Technology
Schools: Insead July'17
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 93

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink] New post 07 Jun 2015, 08:58
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
Intern
avatar
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] New post 09 Jun 2015, 05:37
I will go with B. (it only makes sense)

Though, any expert who can verify if our answer is correct?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 145
Location: India
GPA: 3.7
WE: Corporate Finance (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 17

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink] New post 09 Jun 2015, 09:08
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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 10 Nov 2014
Posts: 27
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 1

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink] New post 22 Jun 2015, 00:49
I go with B too. Other choices are out of scope.
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to   [#permalink] 22 Jun 2015, 00:49
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
9 Experts publish their posts in the topic After the recent court rulings, commercial shark fishing and joshnsit 12 23 Jul 2014, 16:06
Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to tuanquang269 12 07 Dec 2011, 00:36
Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer goalsnr 7 28 May 2008, 18:52
Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer humtum0 0 26 Jul 2007, 15:11
1 Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to ps_dahiya 9 17 Jul 2006, 21:05
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.