返回列表 发帖

Prep2-cr62,B项我怎么觉得它无关呢?

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? EB







(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.

EB当中纠结了很久还是选了Eas a result of being employed in any particular occupation.难道不是说这个heart attack是由于工作引起的?但是文中说的是job applicant ,so,我觉得B是无关的,就这样排除了。B是不是无关的啊?






EB当中纠结了很久还是选了Eas a result of being employed in any particular occupation.难道不是说这个heart attack是由于工作引起的?但是文中说的是job applicant ,so,我觉得B是无关的,就这样排除了。B是不是无关的啊?


收藏 分享

This is a weakening question.

TOP

simply says that there is no way to apply the law based on reliable medical method. Thus the law would not be effective.

The law says "if working in the job would entail a 90 percent chance of heart attack." That's AFTER employment. B just says that this law is obsurd since it requires non-existent technology.

TOP

明白了,我是理解错了原文意思,回去一看题目,果然是after employment的。
谢谢哈.

TOP

返回列表

站长推荐 关闭


美国top10 MBA VIP申请服务

自2003年开始提供 MBA 申请服务以来,保持着90% 以上的成功率,其中Top10 MBA服务成功率更是高达95%


查看