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

 It is currently 21 Aug 2018, 06:55

### 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

# Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to

Author Message
CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2840
Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008
Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 24 Oct 2014, 04:20
4
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

80% (01:03) correct 20% (01:22) wrong based on 274 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.

_________________

SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008

Originally posted by ps_dahiya on 17 Jul 2006, 22:05.
Last edited by WoundedTiger on 24 Oct 2014, 04:20, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 548
Location: Munich,Germany
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 22:19
B, IMO , gives us a reason why this ruling can cause prolems. If there is no legally acceptable way determinig the risk, then there can be conflicting results. Employers might calculate a percentage which is <90%, but potenital employees might calcuate the risk as >90%, o vice-versa which will cause problems in employment practices.
VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1450
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 22:27
(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.
SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1699
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jul 2006, 22:34
Clear winner B.

Employment practices are supposed to be fair.
IF no legally accpeted methods are present to find the chances of a person suffering a heart attack then the ruling cannot be a fair emploemtn practice.
VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1369
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jul 2006, 10:37
if B is true, then the argument doesn't make sense

so B should be IT
Manager
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 103
Location: London
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2006, 03:13
B, but not sure I can rule out A that easily
Manager
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 226
Location: Arkansas, US
WE 1: 2.5 yrs in manufacturing
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2006, 03:21
Can rule out everything else...B is the winner
Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 226
Location: Italy
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jul 2006, 03:38
I do not know if this one is a gmat question type btw for me it seems that B wins
_________________

â€œIf money is your hope for independence you will never have it. The only real security that a man will have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience, and ability.â€

Intern
Status: 800 and more!
Joined: 11 Apr 2017
Posts: 38
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 620 Q47 V29
GPA: 3.75
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2017, 21:28
Can someone explain why option D and A are wrong?
Intern
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 4
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Apr 2018, 05:59
Why is e incorrect?

If the ruling is supposed to protect both the employer and the employee, wouldn't a decline in the number of applications hamper the growth of both?
Intern
Joined: 05 Apr 2016
Posts: 28
Location: India
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V34
Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Apr 2018, 07:27
Megha1119 wrote:
Why is e incorrect?

If the ruling is supposed to protect both the employer and the employee, wouldn't a decline in the number of applications hamper the growth of both?

Here is my two cents on your doubts.
The decline in the number of applications may hamper the growth of both, but this is not true all of the time or in every situation.
The decline may hamper the growth of both as you said but it may be beneficial for both the employer and the employee, for instance in below situations:
Beneficial for Employer : By reducing the wastage of precious resources(cost, interviewers' time) on large no. of candidates, for a small no. of job posts.
Beneficial for Employees : By saving the applicants by not selecting them if they entail a 90% chance of suffering from heart attack if working in the job.

If E is true, the use of this court ruling as part of the law may or may not be effective in regulating employment practices.
Intern
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 4
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Apr 2018, 09:20
prashants412 wrote:
Megha1119 wrote:
Why is e incorrect?

If the ruling is supposed to protect both the employer and the employee, wouldn't a decline in the number of applications hamper the growth of both?

Here is my two cents on your doubts.
The decline in the number of applications may hamper the growth of both, but this is not true all of the time or in every situation.
The decline may hamper the growth of both as you said but it may be beneficial for both the employer and the employee, for instance in below situations:
Beneficial for Employer : By reducing the wastage of precious resources(cost, interviewers' time) on large no. of candidates, for a small no. of job posts.
Beneficial for Employees : By saving the applicants by not selecting them if they entail a 90% chance of suffering from heart attack if working in the job.

If E is true, the use of this court ruling as part of the law may or may not be effective in regulating employment practices.

Hey! Thanks a lot for the explanation. I get it that option 'e' need not always be true for the the ruling to hold true.
Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to &nbs [#permalink] 13 Apr 2018, 09:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to

Moderators: GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo

# Events & Promotions

 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®.