[問題] pp cr 62

看板GMAT作者 (好奇怪喔)時間15年前 (2009/01/01 22:03), 編輯推噓1(100)
留言1則, 1人參與, 最新討論串1/4 (看更多)
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? (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. ans B 看不太懂這題的意思 想順便請教看不懂題目時 這題選項要如何排除呢 謝謝大家~~~~ -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 118.160.237.9

01/02 00:56, , 1F
我看完選了B耶
01/02 00:56, 1F
文章代碼(AID): #19NCqMT0 (GMAT)
討論串 (同標題文章)
以下文章回應了本文 (最舊先):
問題
0
1
完整討論串 (本文為第 1 之 4 篇):
問題
1
1
問題
0
1
文章代碼(AID): #19NCqMT0 (GMAT)