1. When subjected to the current qualifying tests for combat in the U.S. Army, much fewer women pass the test than men, but some individuals do. In contrast to some other employment contexts, however, testing people for combat jobs is a long, difficult and very expensive process for the military. Although the U.S. Military is still gathering data on this question, suppose it turns out that women’s pass rate is a consistent 5% in large samples, that the cost of testing is $100,000 per candidate, and the military values a successfully trained combat soldier at $1 million dollars (over and above what the soldier is paid; these are just made-up numbers, designed to pose a question). With these numbers, on average, 20 female candidates need to be evaluated, at a total cost of 20 * $100,000 = $2 million dollars, to produce a worker worth

$1 million dollars to the military. If these turn out to be the right numbers, would you support an official policy (which, by definition, is a form of statistical discrimination) of excluding women from consideration for combat jobs in the U.S. military? Why or why not?