Many companies have recently required their employees to pay an increasing percentage of the cost of health
insurance premiums. On average, the companies that instituted this change reported an 11 percent increase in
profits for the last fiscal year.

If, on the basis of the evidence above, it is argued that increasing the portion of health insurance costs
paid directly by employees increased a company's profitability, which of the following, if true, would most seriously
weaken that argument?

A: The increased cost of health insurance premiums at some companies led highly skilled employees of those
companies to move to competing firms with lower health costs.
B: Companies that have cut employee benefit costs in other areas such as retirement packages have also seen
increased profits.
C: Companies that increased the percentage of health insurance premiums paid directly by employees were just as
likely as other companies to give employees a raise during the last fiscal year.
D: Because employees often object to paying a large percentage of health insurance premiums, it can take a long time
to implement the changes.
E: On average, companies that did not increase the percentage of health insurance premiums paid by their employees
reported a 16 percent increase in profits for the last fiscal year.

why is wrong?
_________________

KUDOS me if you feel my contribution has helped you.

Losing talent is not the same as losing money. Hence it doesn't directly weaken the conclusion.

E is an example of effect happening (profit up) without cause (raising health insurance premiums) occurring.

Doh! I selected A without reading all of the options properly. Let that be a lesson to me...