Multiple choice

Directions: For this question, select the best of the answer choices given.

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?

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

  2. 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.

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

  4. Employees who have a 90 percent chance of suffering a heart attack may be unaware that their risk is so great.

  5. 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.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
B Correct answer
Explanation

The ruling allows rejecting applicants if there's a 90% heart attack risk. For this to regulate employment effectively, there must be a reliable way to calculate that 90% risk. Option B states that no accepted methods exist for such calculations. Without valid measurement methods, the ruling cannot be applied, making it ineffective in practice.

Keep practicing — related questions