GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 18 Aug 2018, 16:56

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

Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 123
Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 23 Aug 2017, 01:30
6
14
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

73% (02:38) correct 27% (01:30) wrong based on 988 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.

Originally posted by wunderbar03 on 01 May 2005, 04:20.
Last edited by hazelnut on 23 Aug 2017, 01:30, edited 2 times in total.
Added OA
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 862
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 May 2005, 08:52
1
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: 1450
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 May 2005, 13:56
1
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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Posts: 75
Concentration: Leadership, Technology
Reviews Badge
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Mar 2015
Posts: 1
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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?
Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3780
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE: Business Development (Commercial Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jun 2015, 10:08
1
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 | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )

Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2109
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Sep 2016, 21:15
1
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
_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Apr 2016
Posts: 99
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Leadership
Schools: ISB '19, IIMB
GMAT 1: 580 Q43 V27
GMAT 2: 650 Q32 V48
GRE 1: Q160 V151
GPA: 3.99
WE: Design (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
Board of Directors
User avatar
V
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3692
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Sep 2016, 01:07
1
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.
_________________

My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place
Blog: Subscribe to Question of the Day Blog

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.

New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!



Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Aug 2016
Posts: 38
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q47 V21
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
WE: Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Dec 2016, 05:37
abhimahna wrote:
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.



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.
_________________

Consider giving Kudos, if you find worth it :) !!

Director
Director
User avatar
B
Status: I don't stop when I'm Tired,I stop when I'm done
Joined: 11 May 2014
Posts: 551
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Finance, Leadership
GPA: 2.81
WE: Business Development (Real Estate)
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Dec 2016, 11:49
Top Contributor
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.
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.



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)
_________________

Md. Abdur Rakib

Please Press +1 Kudos,If it helps
Sentence Correction-Collection of Ron Purewal's "elliptical construction/analogies" for SC Challenges

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Mar 2018
Posts: 1
Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 May 2018, 02:45
1
How is this tagged as a Must be True when it's a Weaken question? Can someone reclassify it plz.
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 47983
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 May 2018, 23:10
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to &nbs [#permalink] 20 May 2018, 23:10
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  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


cron

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

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

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®.