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 otherwiseoccur several years later, Salcor encourages Garnet employees to have their cholesterol levels tested and to obtain early treatment for highcholesterol. Renco employees generally remain with Renco only for a few years,however. Therefore, Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to Renco employees.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Early treatment of high cholesterol does not eliminate the possibilityof 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 Garnetemployees.
[spoiler]OA: C[/spoiler]
Below is how I think. After you read it, please tell whether it's right.
Conclusion:S doesn't have the same financial incentive as it does in G company's case to encourage R employees...
Premise 1：S provides health insurance to both G's employees and R's employees.
premise 2: Early treatment of high cholesterol means no strokes, S encouraged G's employees to ...Thus S can save the money otherwise it may have to pay.
premise 3: R employees stay in the company for a few years.
(Assumption: Once these R employees leave the company, S will on longer be responsible for them, i.e. they won't be afraid that in the future those employees will have strokes and it will have to pay for that.)
So, to weaken the argument is to weaken the assumption here. Choice C can perfectly attack the assumption by saying that in most cases, S will still have to be responsible for those R employees because even if many of them don't stay long in R company, a SIGNIFICANT number of them will be hired by G company, which also receives the service by S. If choice C is true and S doesn't encourage R's employees to ..., then S probably will have to bear the losses in the future for having not encouraged the employees to have ... tested and to obtain early treatment for high cholesterol.Thus, to avoid paying for the possible increased costs of delayed treatment, a financial incentive, S has to encourage the same thing to R's employees, weakening the argument.
Please please tell me whether I get the whole thing right. I work on this CR for a very long time and I can only completely understand the reason to pick C when I think there is an assumption as stated above. If it is wrong,please enlighten me on the right way.Thanks in advance.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Early treatment of high cholesterol does not eliminate the possibilityof 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 Garnetemployees.
[spoiler]OA: C[/spoiler]
Below is how I think. After you read it, please tell whether it's right.
Conclusion:S doesn't have the same financial incentive as it does in G company's case to encourage R employees...
Premise 1：S provides health insurance to both G's employees and R's employees.
premise 2: Early treatment of high cholesterol means no strokes, S encouraged G's employees to ...Thus S can save the money otherwise it may have to pay.
premise 3: R employees stay in the company for a few years.
(Assumption: Once these R employees leave the company, S will on longer be responsible for them, i.e. they won't be afraid that in the future those employees will have strokes and it will have to pay for that.)
So, to weaken the argument is to weaken the assumption here. Choice C can perfectly attack the assumption by saying that in most cases, S will still have to be responsible for those R employees because even if many of them don't stay long in R company, a SIGNIFICANT number of them will be hired by G company, which also receives the service by S. If choice C is true and S doesn't encourage R's employees to ..., then S probably will have to bear the losses in the future for having not encouraged the employees to have ... tested and to obtain early treatment for high cholesterol.Thus, to avoid paying for the possible increased costs of delayed treatment, a financial incentive, S has to encourage the same thing to R's employees, weakening the argument.
Please please tell me whether I get the whole thing right. I work on this CR for a very long time and I can only completely understand the reason to pick C when I think there is an assumption as stated above. If it is wrong,please enlighten me on the right way.Thanks in advance.
