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.
