甲乙丙丁是写题顺序 ※ 引述《shyuan (好奇怪喔)》之铭言： : 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...最後为结论句 但发现结论句很奇怪 突然跑出来 丙.修正想法 开除心脏病-->可以保护员工和雇主 丁.焦点在於 是不是开除心脏病 就可以保护员工和雇主 : 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.下面选项哪个是发生的话 上面所述就无法有效-->weaken 有结论句 : (A) The best interests of employers often conflict with the interests of : employees. 两个人兴趣的差别........与议题无关 : (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. 根本没有合法的方式判定心脏病 否定因! weaken~ : (C) Some jobs might involve health risks other than the risk of heart attack. 其他的健康风险....与议题无关 : (D) Employees who have a 90 percent chance of suffering a heart attack may be : unaware that their risk is so great. 他们有没有察觉...与议题无关 : (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. 公司跟他们说会得心脏病....与议题无关 一开始判定还是会有所错误 但就不要怕 先往下写 绕在题干里面 有时候会越绕越不知道自己在做什麽 这题讯号字没有很强烈 或许有其他大大可以分享 但讯号字自己总结可能会比较有效唷... ans B : 看不太懂这题的意思 : 想顺便请教看不懂题目时 这题选项要如何排除呢 : 谢谢大家~~~~ --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 114.137.35.244 ※ 编辑: apada 来自: 114.137.35.244 (01/01 23:29)