扫描二维码，直接登录
题库 / Prep2007E2-CR-62
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?
The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of employees.
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.
Some jobs might involve health risks other than the risk of heart attack.
Employees who have a 90 percent chance of suffering a heart attack may be unaware that their risk is so great.
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.
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.
是法律允许公司这样做，而公司是不是这样做的还不知道，公司这样做的后果就更无法预测了；无关选项
问的是下列哪个选项会使这个方案无法实施（could not be effective）：
B 没有可行的方法来测定某工作是否可以引发高心脏病的风险→也就是说上面所提到的plan根本不可行
E 申请人数会因为ruling而下降 这只是ruling可能造成的一个后果 并没有质疑ruling的可行性（因为还是有很多人去ruling了）
第二遍错 还是对于题目的could not be effective理解的不对！！！！
E申请人少了不就对employer没有保护吗~咋不对呢，削弱方案？
目的是be effective in regulating employment practices
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
求e的解释
1. 原文说是工作伴随着心脏病危险 选项说是申请人有心脏病
2. 原文说是90%，选项说是HIGH
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
B:方案可行性削弱