推 evelyn22:我看完選了B耶 01/02 00:56
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