Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

It is currently 28 May 2017, 07:27

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 887
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 74

Kudos [?]: 657 [0], given: 44

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Dec 2011, 01:36
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

72% (02:20) correct 28% (01:37) wrong based on 165 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.
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 the job entailed high risk of heart attack.

OA later some discussion
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you :)

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question


Last edited by WoundedTiger on 24 Oct 2014, 04:21, edited 1 time in total.
OA added
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Jan 2011
Posts: 24
Followers: 0

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

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

Show Tags

New post 21 Dec 2011, 23:24
an easy one


A) The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of employees --> law would be effective if employers often conflict with the interests of employees, which indicates that employers doesn't take the possible heart attacks of employees into account
(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 calculation method, enforcement of law doesn't make sense
(C) Some jobs might involve health risks other than the risk of heart attack. ---> law would be definitely effective in those "some jobs" the statement is referring to
(D) Employees who have a 90 percent chance of suffering a heart attack may be unaware that their risk is so great. ---> unawareness of employees can be an advantage by the employees in employing them in places prone to heart attack, law would definitely be effective here
(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. ---> statement itself confirms the fact that job entailed high risk of heart attack, law is definitely beneficial
_________________

SKK

Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to   [#permalink] 21 Dec 2011, 23:24
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
State X s income-averaging law allows a portion of one s noboru 8 02 Sep 2009, 17:30
State X s income-averaging law allows a portion of one s lordw 3 23 Apr 2010, 08:55
State X s income-averaging law allows a portion of one s marcodonzelli 7 14 Feb 2008, 23:41
Under current federal law, employers are allowed to offer humtum0 0 26 Jul 2007, 16:11
State X s income-averaging law allows a portion of one s crazy123 2 02 Jul 2007, 00:59
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| 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®.