Im stuck between A and E.
A because employees leave when they r unhappy, and anyone having to pay more will be unhappy.
E for obvious reasons that paying more is also a factor.
I would say E, but not very convinced.

Interesting question. I think you're right with E - remember that in Inference questions the correct answer Must Be True based on the premises.

E is fairly easy to prove:

The length of employment "may be" (soft commitment) determined by "other factors" (like health insurance deductibles).

Because "may be" is soft, and "other factors" includes the deductibles or any other correlative factors that may come with them, E really can't be disputed.

A goes out further on a limb:

When a company (meaning any company) increases the deductible of its health insurance (not allowing for other factors like more comprehensive coverage or higher pay rates to deal with the deductible) its employees will be unhappy.

Our evidence really only points to one company, and it doesn't demonstrate causation, just correlation. So to make a blanket statement like A is really tough to do.

Say, hypothetically, that a company raised its deductible but added extra sick days. Does that mean that employees would automatically be unhappy? Ultimately, the passage says nothing about happiness, so we really can't draw a conclusion about it, and we can also draw hypotheticals that would seem to allow the deductible to increase along with happiness.

A can't quite be proven, and since that's the name of the game on Inference questions, the correct answer must be E.

Thanks Brian, I eliminated A on the same line. Though employees are leaving the company after increase in deductible does not mean that employees are unhappy. It may be coincidence that employees are leaving after increase in deductible. So we can not infer A in this question.

E is strong one here.

Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Interesting question. I think you're right with E - remember that in Inference questions the correct answer Must Be True based on the premises.

E is fairly easy to prove:

The length of employment "may be" (soft commitment) determined by "other factors" (like health insurance deductibles).

Because "may be" is soft, and "other factors" includes the deductibles or any other correlative factors that may come with them, E really can't be disputed.

A goes out further on a limb:

When a company (meaning any company) increases the deductible of its health insurance (not allowing for other factors like more comprehensive coverage or higher pay rates to deal with the deductible) its employees will be unhappy.

Our evidence really only points to one company, and it doesn't demonstrate causation, just correlation. So to make a blanket statement like A is really tough to do.

Say, hypothetically, that a company raised its deductible but added extra sick days. Does that mean that employees would automatically be unhappy? Ultimately, the passage says nothing about happiness, so we really can't draw a conclusion about it, and we can also draw hypotheticals that would seem to allow the deductible to increase along with happiness.

A can't quite be proven, and since that's the name of the game on Inference questions, the correct answer must be E.

Interesting quistion..learnt a ton from it...

@Brain thanks for your wounderful explanation.