Recently a court ruled that current law allows companies to reject a job applicant if working in the job would...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Weaken

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

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.

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?

The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of employees.

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.

Some jobs might involve health risks other than the risk of heart attack.

Employees who have a \(90\%\) chance of suffering a heart attack may be unaware that their risk is so great.

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.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
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.	What it says: Courts decided companies can reject job applicants if the job has a 90% chance of causing them a heart attack What it does: Sets up the main legal ruling that the passage will discuss What it is: Court decision/legal ruling Visualization: Job applicant → 90% heart attack risk → Company can legally reject
The presiding judge justified the ruling, saying that it protected both employees and employers.	What it says: The judge explained this ruling helps protect both workers and companies What it does: Provides the judge's reasoning for why this court decision makes sense What it is: Judge's justification/explanation

Argument Flow:

The passage presents a court ruling and then immediately gives us the judge's reasoning for that decision. It's a simple two-part structure: here's what happened, and here's why the judge thinks it's justified.

Main Conclusion:

The judge believes this court ruling protects both employees and employers, which justifies allowing companies to reject applicants who face a 90% heart attack risk from the job.

Logical Structure:

This isn't really a traditional argument with premises leading to a conclusion. Instead, we have a factual report (court made this ruling) followed by the judge's explanation (it protects everyone involved). The judge's reasoning serves as support for why the ruling makes sense.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Weaken - specifically asking when the court ruling would be ineffective at regulating employment practices

Precision of Claims

The claim is about effectiveness of regulation - whether this court ruling can actually control/guide employment practices in real situations

Strategy

Find scenarios where this court ruling fails to effectively regulate employment practices. This means looking for situations where companies cannot practically apply this rule, where the rule provides no real guidance, or where external factors prevent the rule from working as intended.

Answer Choices Explained

The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of employees.

This doesn't affect the ruling's effectiveness at regulation. The judge already acknowledged that the ruling protects both parties, and conflicting interests don't prevent companies from applying the 90% heart attack risk standard. The rule can still function even when interests conflict.

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.

This completely destroys the ruling's effectiveness. If we can't reliably calculate whether a job poses a 90% heart attack risk, then companies have no way to determine when this rule applies. Without measurement methods, the regulation becomes impossible to implement practically.

Some jobs might involve health risks other than the risk of heart attack.

This doesn't weaken the ruling's effectiveness for heart attack risks specifically. The regulation can still work perfectly fine for its intended scope - heart attack risks - even if other health risks exist that aren't covered by this particular ruling.

Employees who have a \(90\%\) chance of suffering a heart attack may be unaware that their risk is so great.

Employee awareness doesn't affect whether companies can apply the regulation effectively. Companies can still use the ruling to make hiring decisions based on the 90% risk standard, regardless of what applicants know about their own risk levels.

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.

Fewer applicants doesn't prevent the regulation from working effectively. Companies can still apply the 90% heart attack risk standard to whatever applicants they do receive, making this a side effect rather than something that undermines the rule's functionality.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...