BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Please explain why are the wrong options wrong.

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pm
Thanked: 127 times
Followed by:14 members

Please explain why are the wrong options wrong.

by gmat_perfect » Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:21 am
Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

Garnet and RenCo each provide health care for their employees. Garnet pays for both testing of its employees' cholesterol levels and treatment of high cholesterol. This policy saves Garnet money, since high cholesterol left untreated for many years leads to conditions that require very expensive treatment. However, RenCo does not have the same financial incentive to adopt such a policy, because __________.

(A) early treatment of high cholesterol does not entirely eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life
=>
(B) the mass media regularly feature stories encouraging people to maintain diets that are low in cholesterol
=>
(C) RenCo has significantly more employees than Garnet has
=>
(D) RenCo's employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet's employees
=>
(E) the average length of time an employee stays with RenCo is less than it is with Garnet

[spoiler]OA: E: Why NOT D?[/spoiler]

My reasoning:

This is a strengthen question. How to tackle the strengthen question? Do you have any proved tip? Please explain.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pm
Thanked: 127 times
Followed by:14 members

by gmat_perfect » Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:25 am
I failed to find any logic to eliminate the option A.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:19 am
HI Gmat_perfect,

I also felt A close as you rightly pointed out. But more detailed reading throws out A.
Here are my findings.

Premises:
Garnet pays for testing of its employees' cholestrol levels.
Garnet pays for treatment of high cholestrol.
Garnet does this because:
high cholesterol left untreated for many years leads to conditions that require very expensive treatment

Renco doesnot follow this procedure.

Option A says:
early treatment of high cholesterol does not entirely eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life
Main reason why A is wrong is:
Passage doesnt say that High cholestrol leads to Stroke. That is extraneous information.

A Could have been correct if it said:
early treatment of high cholesterol does not entirely eliminate the possibility of an expensive treatment later.
Because, We need to stand in shoes of Renco and see in which way it wanted to cut costs.

Hope this helps!!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:39 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by pnk » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:48 am
Key aspect is to show 'why treatment of high cholesterol if left untreated' is financially beneficial for G, but not for R.

Correct answer will show this linkage.

(A) early treatment of high cholesterol does not entirely eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life (does not show that policy is not beneficial for R. In fact, choice says "does not entirely' - meaning atleast some future strokes can be avoided - so it does say that policy can be beneficial for R to some degree. Additionally, this choice imply policy is harmful for G to some degree)

(D) RenCo's employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet's employees (its good that R's employee may not have high cholesterol - in that case there is no need for R to have such a policy at all. But even then this choice does not indicate 'why financially its not beneficial for R to have such a policy.

The argument says 'G gains from the policy bcoz thro its able to avoid expensive treaments may require in future. We have to find a reason why the same policy will not be financially beneficial for R ie having the same policy will financially harm R. This choice does not show that policy will be harmful for R)

(E) the average length of time an employee stays with RenCo is less than it is with Garnet (if employee stay for lesser duration than G..even if R has such a policy...it will not gain. The future employer of R's emplyee will benefit) - correct
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pm
Thanked: 127 times
Followed by:14 members

by gmat_perfect » Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:19 am
kvcpk wrote:HI Gmat_perfect,

I also felt A close as you rightly pointed out. But more detailed reading throws out A.
Here are my findings.

Premises:
Garnet pays for testing of its employees' cholestrol levels.
Garnet pays for treatment of high cholestrol.
Garnet does this because:
high cholesterol left untreated for many years leads to conditions that require very expensive treatment

Renco doesnot follow this procedure.

Option A says:
early treatment of high cholesterol does not entirely eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life
Main reason why A is wrong is:
Passage doesnt say that High cholestrol leads to Stroke. That is extraneous information.

A Could have been correct if it said:
early treatment of high cholesterol does not entirely eliminate the possibility of an expensive treatment later.
Because, We need to stand in shoes of Renco and see in which way it wanted to cut costs.

Hope this helps!!
Good catch man.
Thanks.

Would you give a try why D is not the answer?

Thanks.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:47 am
gmat_perfect wrote: Good catch man.
Thanks.

Would you give a try why D is not the answer?

Thanks.
Option D says

RenCo's employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet's employees

This means two things:
Renco's employees have same cholestrol levels as Garnet's employees OR
Renco's employees have lower cholestrol levels than Garnet's empoyees.

Our aim here is to provide an argument strong enough that RenCo would use to motivate why they are not financially interested by investing in present testing in treating the cholesterol problems of their employee.

If Renco's employees have lower cholestrol levels than Garnets' then it would serve the purpose.
But, If Renco's employees have same cholestrol levels as Garnet's employees, then it doesnt provide strong support to Rencos' thoughts.

Hence this option doesnt support strongly.

Hope this helps!!
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1