请教OG-109

knight9514

109. 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 hear heart . The presding 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 employement pratices if which of the following were true?
B:No really accepted methods exists for calculating the risk of a job applicant's having a heart attack as a result of being employed in any particular occupation.
不明白B为何是假设,OG的解释我也不太明白.能帮助讲讲吗?谢谢.

daoying

首先这道题目不是assumption，而是weaken！
前提是

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 hear heart

结论为

The presding judge justified the ruling, saying that it protected both employees and employers

演绎方向为：前提结论形！
所以weaken 只有两种思路，1、断桥 2、他因否认结论
答案为

No really accepted methods exists for calculating the risk of a job applicant's having a heart attack as a result of being employed in any particular occupation

否认没有标准来测定90%的比率，所以为断桥削弱！

poorleafs

(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.

E选项不是断桥,却好像是提供了一个其它的原因来削弱结论说的"the rule protect both sides"。就是说employer可能找不到想要的人，因为employee会认为这个职位导致疾病。

不过仔细想想好像也不是其他的原因削弱，好像是用一种潜在的可能性来说明这个结论不对。虽然不是他因，也不是断桥，却总感觉是在削弱。这样的选项如何避免选择呢？请教！

luoye1

我觉得ＯＧ要的选项都是比较直接的。比如这题要的是推论成立的条件，也就是假设，Ｂ就是最好的答案了。很清楚地，所有的推论是基于这个９０％是如何设定的，如果我们没有办法测出９０％这个度，所有的推论都无法成立。Ｅ主要讲了对心脏病发高风险的工作岗位的检查会让人误解这个工作是引起心脏病的，由此减少申请人数。但是这个并不能对推论产生什么影响。即使是再少人数申请，法官的决定还是能保护雇主和雇员的。所以，我认为这个和推论的前提没有直接关系。所以也不能成为推论成立的假设。　所谓假设，我觉得就是一种条件，被去掉后，结论无法成立的，或者结论存在的条件之一。

关键读题后，我觉得要读到每个选项的中心内容。明显Ｅ的中心内容和推论的关系不大

apply1

A) The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of employees.

OG给的解释是Choice A suggests that the judge’s justification for the ruling would be unavailable in many situations but not that the ruling itself would be ineffective.

A肯定是错的，但是OG给的解释实在看不懂。高手能否指教？

wanders

A选项是说那个法官的对这则规定的宣判是无效的。既是削弱的 The presding judge justified the ruling, saying that it protected both employees and employers.

而不是文章要求削弱的rule 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 hear heart