Re: Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to reject a
[#permalink]
21 Dec 2022, 08:29
Reject Job applicant ---------> If there is a 90 percent chance of Heart attack ( working in the Organisation)
This use of his 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. - Suggests it is mutually beneficial to both the Employers and 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.
If this statement is true the entire reasoning falls apart.
(C) Some jobs might involve health risks other than the risk of heart attack. - Out of Scope.
(D) Employees who have a 90 percent chance of suffering a heart attack may be unaware that their risk is so great. - Irrelevant we are talking about new applicants.
(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. - Irrelevant.
Hence IMHO (B) is undoubtedly the best.