Argument: Companies that provide (ESI) had worker absentee rates 22% lower than those at companies that did not offer ESI. So (ESI) causes that effect.

We can weaken the argument if we find another cause for the effect.

Answer D says that many companies have improved workplace safety and decreased the occurrence of on-the-job injuries, so the improvement in workplace safety decreased the job injures and lowered the worker absentee rate.

It's true that the answer also says that those companies introduced ESI at the same time , so that was not the cause for the effect.

Uri wrote:Companies that offer “employer sponsored insurance” (ESI) pay a portion of employees’ health care costs. In the manufacturing sector last year, companies that offered ESI had worker absentee rates 22% lower, on average, than those at companies that did not offer ESI.

If, on the basis of the evidence above, it is argued that ESI decreases worker absenteeism, which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken that argument?

1. Results similar to those cited for the manufacturing sector have been found in other sectors of the economy where ESI is offered.
2. At companies that offer ESI, employees have access to preventative health care such as regular check-ups, routine laboratory tests, and nutrition counseling.
3. Because initiating an ESI plan requires a lot of paperwork for the company, employees, and the insurance provider, doing so is complex and time-consuming.
4. Many firms in the manufacturing sector have improved workplace safety and decreased the occurrence of on-the-job injuries in the last five years, and most of these companies introduced ESI at the same time.
5. In manufacturing firms where ESI is offered, the average productivity is 2% higher than it is in those firms where workers are not covered by an ESI plan.

Source: MGMAT
OA: [spoiler](D)[/spoiler]







OE against [spoiler](B)[/spoiler]: If workers have access to preventative health care as a result of the ESI plan, they might be healthier and would miss fewer days of work due to illness. This point supports the argument.

OE for [spoiler](D)[/spoiler]: Many firms in the manufacturing sector have improved workplace safety and decreased the occurrence of on-the-job injuries in the last five years, and most of these companies introduced ESI at the same time.

My doubt: The options never said that health care access is a result or prerequisite of the companies opting for ESI. The companies may have these facilities like any other. In that case, ESI does not play any role in decreasing absenteeism. So, on the basis of the given information, can we eliminate (B) properly? Please provide your own reasoning.

In 'B', how do we come to a conclusion that ESI offers preventive health care. I went with 'B' assuming that preventive health care is the alternative explantion for decreased absentism.

I agree its confusing, however it is implied that the services are offered by the company. Therefore, these services are "employer sponsored" and since the sponsorship means financial funding, it's a kind of 'insurance'.

Arg is " ESI decreases absenteeism"

To weaken it , the arg should support " ESI does not decrease ansenteeism"

That is what D does.
B in fact supports it.

Cheers

I think D is the best option

I will go with option D