Critical Reasoning

Folks, any thoughts?

E?

A. too extreme.

B. out of scope

C. out of scope. even if Renco had more employees, not all would have been diagnosed with higher cholesterol

D. even if employees were likely to have high cholesterol, Renco would not have any financial incentive to spend on testing and treating if they didnt work on a longer term

E. if people worked on a short term, then Renco would have no finacial incentive to spend on testing and treating as people would leave soon after. correct

A: Incorrect. We are not talking about entirely eliminating the possibility of stroke later in life. Instead the argument says that if we test and treat high cholesterol levels (CL) now we could save huge amount of money in terms of expensive treatment in the future. The argument does not mention anywhere that treating high CL now will eliminate future strokes completely.

B: Incorrect. The mass media might take steps to encourage people to maintain low diets. But since the passage does not mention whether people actually do get influenced by these efforts or not, this option is irrelevant.

C: Incorrect. Now whether RenCo has more employees than Garnet does not tell us that if we invest in treatment of high cholesterol now, then we will be able to compensate for the high treatment costs in the future. This option in fact gives you a good reason to adopt the policy. The more employees you have, the company will have more cases of high CL hence leading to higher costs in the future.

D: Incorrect. The word 'unlikely' makes this an incorrect option. Unlikely means uncertain. So there is still a certain chance that the employees may have high CL in the future. So you still have a reason to adopt the policy.

E: Correct If on an average, the employees tend to stay for a shorter time in RenCo, then investing in testing and treatment of high CL will actually be a loss for RenCo, as you are investing in something that has consequences only in the long term. So it doesn't really benefit RenCo since on an average the employees wont stay for long time.

Suppose, what will be the picture if the average work time for Garnet is 15 yers and that for RenCo is 14,75 years?
This is actually answer E but 3 months will not play any role.
What do you think?

On E, it says that the RenCo employees' AVERAGE length of stay is less than that of Garnet ones.
but the AVERAGE LENGTH can be less for 1 year, 10 years, 1 month, or even 1 day.
Do, you think it is ok whether the OA contains an uncertainty?

OA is E

Ans : E.
Reason are 2.
1. If employees are stying with Renco for long, the Renco will save money in their treatment which is possibly after many years. Bus as said employee will be laeving soon, then that future saving will not be there.

2. If after taking intial treatment, employees are leaving then also that investment of no return for the company.

I fell for C. Since 1st company has less employees it can afford testing which later reduces the expenses for treatment. While for a company with more employees it costs much more money to pay for testing of ALL employees instead of paying treatment just for a few who actually get sick.

Ans : E

If employees are staying for long term then there is financial advantage in getting them tested for cholesterol. which is not the case with RenCo.

I must admit that E seems to be the answer. What's OA?