Garnet, Renco and Salcor

This topic has expert replies
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:55 pm
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:670

Garnet, Renco and Salcor

by kaustubh_b » Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:30 pm
GMAT Prep - 1

Two computer companies Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to provide health insurance for their employees. Because early treatment of high cholesterol can prevent strokes that would otherwise occur several years later, Salcor encourages Garnet employees to have their cholesterol levels tested and to obtain early treatment for high cholesterol. Renco employees remain with Renco only for a few years, however. Therefore, Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to Renco empoyees.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Early treatment of cholesterol does not eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life.
(B) People often obtain early treatment for high cholesterol on their own.
(C) Garnet hires a significant number of former employees of Renco.
(D) Renco and Garnet have approximately the same number of employees.
(E) Renco employees are not, on average, significantly younger than Garnet employees.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2109
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:25 pm
Location: New Jersey
Thanked: 109 times
Followed by:79 members
GMAT Score:640

by money9111 » Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:22 pm
IMO C... because it shows how even though employees stay fora s hort time at one company... it impacts the long term at another company...
My goal is to make MBA applicants take onus over their process.

My story from Pre-MBA to Cornell MBA - New Post in Pre-MBA blog

Me featured on Poets & Quants

Free Book for MBA Applicants


Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 5:07 am
Location: India

by h_jitendras » Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:14 pm
IMO ..E. Since even if the employees at Renco do not stay with the company longer but on an average are not younger than the employees at Garnet.then they are more susceptible to strokes(because of their age) and this will likely provide the incentive to Salcor to insure them....

OA pls?

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 10:55 pm
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:670

by kaustubh_b » Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:30 pm
The OA is C.....

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2109
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 10:25 pm
Location: New Jersey
Thanked: 109 times
Followed by:79 members
GMAT Score:640

by money9111 » Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:58 pm
h_jitendras i see your argument, but let me approach it a different way and hopefully someone else can back me up...

you and i both know that as we get older, we're more susceptible to strokes, but this information isn't given in the question... so you're introducing new evidence to support one of the choices.

did you at least narrow it down to E and C?
My goal is to make MBA applicants take onus over their process.

My story from Pre-MBA to Cornell MBA - New Post in Pre-MBA blog

Me featured on Poets & Quants

Free Book for MBA Applicants


Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: Hyderabad
Thanked: 12 times

by vijay_venky » Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:04 am
I agree with money9111. And moreover we have been told that the Renco's employees are not significantly younger than those of Garnet, and this could mean different things.

1. They are older.
2. They are of the same age.
3. They are younger but not to a distinguishable extent.

Each of these three could have its own effect on the argument.
So I think C should be the option.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

by komal » Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:18 pm
kaustubh_b wrote:GMAT Prep - 1

Two computer companies Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to provide health insurance for their employees. Because early treatment of high cholesterol can prevent strokes that would otherwise occur several years later, Salcor encourages Garnet employees to have their cholesterol levels tested and to obtain early treatment for high cholesterol. Renco employees remain with Renco only for a few years, however. Therefore, Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to Renco empoyees.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Conclusion : Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to Renco employees.

(A) Early treatment of cholesterol does not eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life.
Incorrect : This does not affect the conclusion in any way.

(B) People often obtain early treatment for high cholesterol on their own.
Incorrect : Out of scope.

(C) Garnet hires a significant number of former employees of Renco.
Correct : If garnet hires a lot of former renco employees then they will provide financial incentives to salcor because they are not very likely to suffer strokes.

(D) Renco and Garnet have approximately the same number of employees.
Incorrect : Irrelevant to the scope of the argument.

(E) Renco employees are not, on average, significantly younger than Garnet employees.
Incorrect : If renco employees are young it can be assumed that they will not have high cholesterol problem for atleast another few years.

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:52 pm
What does Salcor does to employess of G & R ??. They test the cholestrol levels & if Choletrol levels r found to be high , then Salcor "encourages" those employees to go for treatment.

the expenses for the treatment are born by the company.It is clearly mentioned that high cholestrol levels will take "several years" to manifest in to a stroke.

But , here comes the hitch...!! Renco employes are not staying in the company for long. SO this makes the Salcor guys to feel that they are not gettng any finicial incentives( read as finicial benefits/ profits) by advising/ consulting/encouraging renco employees . In shortn Salcor guys are ignoring/ avoiding renco guys assuming that those guys wont yield any "financial benefits".

SO how can we weaken this???

C) Garnet hires a significant number of former employees of Renco..

What does this mean here?? How can I link this to weaken Salcor's though process??

Now that those Ex- Ranco employees ( who may have High Choloestrol levels) are joining Garnet. So IF salcor would have properly advised them of their high choloestrol levels, those employees from the health insurance cover of Garnet would get checked & get treatment and finally Salcor would have benefitted in one way or the other.!!


Unfortunately none of the previous posters gave "real" logical explanation.

Guys, this is GMAT prep Query. SO be aware of the keywords used here. One key word is "several years"

Legendary Member
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by ssgmatter » Sat Aug 07, 2010 7:37 am
i guess e strengthen the argument
Best-
Amit

Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:2 members

by tanviet » Fri Jun 17, 2011 2:28 am
Now I am reviewing the gmatprep question. Never underestimate gmatprep.

Here the hard thing is to understand the argument

because Garnet employees stay long with the company, Salco do not want to loose many in the future for the stroke,it tell these employees to take test. Salco will not do this with REnco employees because Salco will not loose money in the future for the stroke.

this is the key of the argument.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:39 pm
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

by BlindVision » Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:55 am
kaustubh_b wrote:GMAT Prep - 1

Two computer companies Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to provide health insurance for their employees. Because early treatment of high cholesterol can prevent strokes that would otherwise occur several years later, Salcor encourages Garnet employees to have their cholesterol levels tested and to obtain early treatment for high cholesterol. Renco employees remain with Renco only for a few years, however. Therefore, Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to Renco empoyees.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Early treatment of cholesterol does not eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life.
(B) People often obtain early treatment for high cholesterol on their own.
(C) Garnet hires a significant number of former employees of Renco.
(D) Renco and Garnet have approximately the same number of employees.
(E) Renco employees are not, on average, significantly younger than Garnet employees.
I chose "C" as well because the other choices were easily eliminated, however, the more I read choice "C" the more it seems to strengthen the conclusion rather than weaken because the reason that "Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to Renco empoyees" is because "Garnet hires a significant number of former employees of Renco."

Does this answer sound like it strenthens the conclusion, or am I missing a perspective that hasn't been addressed??
Life is a Test