Last visit was: 06 Nov 2024, 23:40 It is currently 06 Nov 2024, 23:40
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
555-605 Level|   Weaken|               
User avatar
wunderbar03
Joined: 12 May 2004
Last visit: 03 Feb 2008
Posts: 70
Own Kudos:
795
 [100]
Posts: 70
Kudos: 795
 [100]
17
Kudos
Add Kudos
82
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
abhimahna
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Last visit: 06 Jul 2024
Posts: 3,588
Own Kudos:
5,536
 [16]
Given Kudos: 346
Status:Emory Goizueta Alum
Products:
Expert reply
Posts: 3,588
Kudos: 5,536
 [16]
10
Kudos
Add Kudos
6
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
jpv
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Last visit: 10 Jan 2012
Posts: 374
Own Kudos:
226
 [3]
Posts: 374
Kudos: 226
 [3]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
MA
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Last visit: 09 Aug 2011
Posts: 704
Own Kudos:
468
 [4]
Posts: 704
Kudos: 468
 [4]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
Abhishek009
User avatar
Board of Directors
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Last visit: 02 Oct 2024
Posts: 6,022
Own Kudos:
4,902
 [2]
Given Kudos: 463
Status:QA & VA Forum Moderator
Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE:Business Development (Commercial Banking)
Posts: 6,022
Kudos: 4,902
 [2]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
wunderbar03
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.
User avatar
Skywalker18
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Last visit: 15 Nov 2023
Posts: 2,079
Own Kudos:
9,234
 [1]
Given Kudos: 171
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Products:
Posts: 2,079
Kudos: 9,234
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
bvg
Joined: 03 Apr 2016
Last visit: 26 Feb 2023
Posts: 71
Own Kudos:
58
 [2]
Given Kudos: 102
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Leadership
GMAT 1: 580 Q43 V27
GMAT 2: 650 Q32 V48
GRE 1: Q160 V151
GPA: 3.99
WE:Design (Consulting)
Products:
GMAT 1: 580 Q43 V27
GMAT 2: 650 Q32 V48
GRE 1: Q160 V151
Posts: 71
Kudos: 58
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
avatar
AbhiGarg2007
Joined: 10 Aug 2016
Last visit: 08 Jun 2018
Posts: 32
Own Kudos:
77
 [3]
Given Kudos: 28
Location: India
GMAT 1: 560 Q47 V21
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
WE:Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)
GMAT 1: 560 Q47 V21
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Posts: 32
Kudos: 77
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
abhimahna
balaji4799
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.
User avatar
AbdurRakib
Joined: 11 May 2014
Last visit: 14 May 2024
Posts: 472
Own Kudos:
40,292
 [1]
Given Kudos: 220
Status:I don't stop when I'm Tired,I stop when I'm done
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Finance, Leadership
GPA: 2.81
WE:Business Development (Real Estate)
Posts: 472
Kudos: 40,292
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
wunderbar03
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)
User avatar
dcummins
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Last visit: 18 Jul 2024
Posts: 1,077
Own Kudos:
2,212
 [1]
Given Kudos: 368
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Products:
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
Posts: 1,077
Kudos: 2,212
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The stem provides some context and a judgement. The factset is that a recent ruling was passed to allow companies to reject applicants who would have a 90% chance of a heart attack if they were to work in the companies' given job.

This fact and ruling assumes that the companies can actually detect these applicants otherwise the ruling is useless.

Therefore, for the ruling to be effective, companies must be able to detect job applicants who would hit the 90% threshold.

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 is incorrect because the best interests of employees or employers have nothing to do with the effectiveness of detecting a heart attack.
B is correct because it presents a fatal flaw in the effectiveness. If no accepted method exists for calculating the risk of a person having a heart attack then how can the employers enforce the ruling? They cant. B is correct.

C is not conducive to the effectiveness of the ruling.
D is exactly why the ruling was introduced, but it doesn't help evaluate the effectiveness of the ruling
E is incorrect because the number of applicants isn't relevant to the effectiveness of the ruling
User avatar
CrackverbalGMAT
User avatar
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Last visit: 06 Nov 2024
Posts: 4,887
Own Kudos:
8,040
 [4]
Given Kudos: 223
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Location: India
Posts: 4,887
Kudos: 8,040
 [4]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The right answer here is B. E is kind of tempting, and is the trap answer here. One of the key things you wanna look out for is the specifics of the statement in the conclusion. We are looking for a statement that suggests that this rule would not help regulate employment. Well if people choose not to apply because there is some stated risk, this is in effect, a form of indirect regulation. So ultimately, it actually kind of strengthens the conclusion.

- Matoo
User avatar
anshul0130
Joined: 11 Oct 2020
Last visit: 26 Jan 2023
Posts: 50
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 22
Posts: 50
Kudos: 1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma - I have a query on the argument. can you please help in clarifying it ?

Argument says - 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.

My query - If current law already allows companies to reject a job applicant, what ruling court has passed. I am not getting this part.
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 06 Nov 2024
Posts: 15,441
Own Kudos:
69,320
 [2]
Given Kudos: 448
Location: Pune, India
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 15,441
Kudos: 69,320
 [2]
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
PanpaliaAnshul
VeritasKarishma - I have a query on the argument. can you please help in clarifying it ?

Argument says - 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.

My query - If current law already allows companies to reject a job applicant, what ruling court has passed. I am not getting this part.

Note that laws are generic. They need to be interpreted by the court on case to case basis. Future cases can refer to previous rulings if they are applicable in their own cases too.

For example, the law may say that safety of both parties needs to be ensured before any hiring. Now a judge needs to rule whether "a 90% chance of applicant's heart attack" falls under this law.

The question is why this ruling may not be effective in regulating employment practices? Why can't this ruling become a part of hiring criteria?

(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 legally acceptable method of calculating the risk of heart attack of a candidate, how can this ruling be useful? A company may reject an applicant on the premise that his risk of heart attack in the job is above 90% but if this case comes to court, there is no legally acceptable method to prove that the candidate's risk is above 90%. Then the law is meaningless. Hence, this law cannot become a part of hiring criteria.

This is correct.
User avatar
priyanshu14
Joined: 25 Jan 2017
Last visit: 17 Jun 2024
Posts: 74
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Schools: IIMC MBAEx'23
Schools: IIMC MBAEx'23
Posts: 74
Kudos: 13
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dear Team,
I have done the question correctly.
I request you to share the detailed explanation of this question so that I can check if my process is correct in answering the question.
Since the question belongs to OG 2010, I tried to find out the official answer explanation but failed on internet.
Please help me out.
Thanks in advance
Priyanshu
User avatar
agrasan
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 06 Nov 2024
Posts: 39
Given Kudos: 1,203
Location: India
Posts: 39
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
wunderbar03
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.

ID 16848
­
Hi GMATNinja KarishmaB

Could you please explain why option E is not correct?
Is it wrong because if people choose not to apply due to screening of applicants for risk of heart attack then it is working in favor of companies, hence, effectiveness is not challenged.

Please let me know if this reasoning is right or wrong.­
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 05 Nov 2024
Posts: 2,771
Own Kudos:
8,002
 [1]
Given Kudos: 56
GMAT 2: 780  Q50  V50
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 2,771
Kudos: 8,002
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
agrasan

The issue is with what the question is asking for. We're supposed to provide something that would make it hard to legally regulate companies in accord with this ruling. We're not trying to determine whether any of these answers would mean bad or good news for companies or applicants. B works because it there's no way to calculate that 90% risk, then any employer could say that they turned someone down because of this risk. There would be no way to apply the law, saying that some hiring decisions were legal and others were not.

E, on the other hand, is just about whether fewer people apply. This might be good for companies (less risk) or bad (fewer applicants to choose from), but either way, it doesn't have any effect on our ability to regulate companies, so it doesn't matter.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7111 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts