→ shyuan:謝謝~~ 另外interest這邊當利益解釋 好像比較通 01/02 00:38
甲乙丙丁是寫題順序
※ 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.
乙.判定 the presiding...最後為結論句 但發現結論句很奇怪 突然跑出來
丙.修正想法 開除心臟病-->可以保護員工和雇主
丁.焦點在於 是不是開除心臟病 就可以保護員工和雇主
: 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?
甲.下面選項哪個是發生的話 上面所述就無法有效-->weaken 有結論句
: (A) The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of
: employees.
兩個人興趣的差別........與議題無關
: (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.
根本沒有合法的方式判定心臟病 否定因! weaken~
: (C) Some jobs might involve health risks other than the risk of heart attack.
其他的健康風險....與議題無關
: (D) Employees who have a 90 percent chance of suffering a heart attack may be
: unaware that their risk is so great.
他們有沒有察覺...與議題無關
: (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.
公司跟他們說會得心臟病....與議題無關
一開始判定還是會有所錯誤 但就不要怕 先往下寫
繞在題幹裡面 有時候會越繞越不知道自己在做什麼
這題訊號字沒有很強烈
或許有其他大大可以分享
但訊號字自己總結可能會比較有效唷...
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: 114.137.35.244
※ 編輯: apada 來自: 114.137.35.244 (01/01 23:29)