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 dose not have the same financial incentive to adopt such a policy, because ______.
A. early treatment of high cholesterol dose 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
Such type of questions are very difficult to be categorized into St,We or Inference type...But the trick is to look at Introductory wordings before the line portion...
Untitled.png [ 8.55 KiB | Viewed 135 times ]
Clearly this becomes a strengthen question because we need to reason out as to what is the incentive for Renco for not offerings incentives to its employees...
For a Strengthen question, The correct answer
*Should present new information to argument
Also, For Strengthen question you need to look for Logical Gaps or look for Common Logical fallacies(Correlation--->Causation, Generalization on limited data presented or interpreting data)
Now, if we go back to the argument, you will see that Garnet does pay for testing and for treatment of high cholesterol because an untreated cholesterol for many years lead to expansive treatment later on------> This points that Employees at Granet stay at company for many years..or very loyal
...can't imagine same thing in india unless you are with Tata or Govt employee)...This is a potential gap ie what if employees at Renco don't stay for that long...
A. early treatment of high cholesterol dose not entirely eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life----> This will be the case for employees at both the companies
B. the mass media regularly feature stories encouraging people to maintain diets that are low in cholesterol----> Does not help the argument unless we know a lot more about Renco employees
C. RenCo has significantly more employees than Garnet has-----> Has significantly more employees means more cost even for testing and treatment...hey but what if they have higher attrition
surely there costs will be significantly more because for new employees (frequent) they will have to shell out more...we know nothing about stay of employees... for this argument it is crucial.. Otherwise the argument will swing based on our answer to portion highlighted in red
D. RenCo's employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet's employees---->fare enough but we are concerned with high cholesterol and not with degree of how high
E. the average length of time an employee stays with RenCo is less than it is with Garnet----> Where were you...I was looking for you in the option...
Ans is E
PS: I chose C initially but the Gmat prep question...had brilliantly masked the information which was crucial to the arguement..
“If you can't fly then run, if you can't run then walk, if you can't walk then crawl, but whatever you do you have to keep moving forward.”