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?
A) Results similar to those cited for the manufacturing sector have been found in other sectors of the economy where ESI is offered.
B) At companies that offer ESI, employees have access to preventative health care such as regular check-ups, routine laboratory tests, and nutrition counseling.
C) 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.
D) 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.
E) 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.
Although this is an easy question, but I think that there is some logical flaw in this question.
First of all - Question is based on "Cause and effect".
Conclusion: ESI --> decrease absenteeism.
[spoiler]B states that -
At companies that offer ESI, employees have access to preventative health care such as regular check-ups, routine laboratory tests, and nutrition counseling.
Problem with this-
> If I assume that having a frequent access to health care improved the health of employee, hence less absenteeism.
so ESI plays no role in this. Its all depend upon how accessible are the heath care centers.
D states that -
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.
Problem with this-
Safety measures were in process of implementation from last 5 years. but results were shown in last year (as per stimulus). So how can I surely say that this cause less absenteeism.[/spoiler]
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?
A) Results similar to those cited for the manufacturing sector have been found in other sectors of the economy where ESI is offered.
B) At companies that offer ESI, employees have access to preventative health care such as regular check-ups, routine laboratory tests, and nutrition counseling.
C) 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.
D) 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.
E) 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.
Although this is an easy question, but I think that there is some logical flaw in this question.
First of all - Question is based on "Cause and effect".
Conclusion: ESI --> decrease absenteeism.
[spoiler]B states that -
At companies that offer ESI, employees have access to preventative health care such as regular check-ups, routine laboratory tests, and nutrition counseling.
Problem with this-
> If I assume that having a frequent access to health care improved the health of employee, hence less absenteeism.
so ESI plays no role in this. Its all depend upon how accessible are the heath care centers.
D states that -
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.
Problem with this-
Safety measures were in process of implementation from last 5 years. but results were shown in last year (as per stimulus). So how can I surely say that this cause less absenteeism.[/spoiler]
