Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink]
01 May 2005, 03:20
100% (01:04) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 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.
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.
(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.