Re: [問題] pp cr 62
※ 引述《shyuan (好奇怪喔)》之銘言：
: 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~~~~
先抓焦點:protect both
反推因果:reject -> protect both
(A)帶入當因不反駁果
(B)pass
(C)跳脫議題(other than有關)
(D)限縮樣本(題目是指全部employees,這邊只指部分employees)
(E)支持
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 61.59.150.227
討論串 (同標題文章)
GMAT 近期熱門文章
PTT職涯區 即時熱門文章
