Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Option E actually strengthens the argument. If Renco employees are not younger than Garnet employees then Renco employees can be affected by stroke -> Salco has no financial incentive by asking Renco employees to test their cholestrol levels
But option C rightly weakens the argument. If Garnet hires some of the ex-Renco employees, these employees can be affected by stroke and Salco would end up paying for this. -> Salco will also lose the financial incentive it had got , by asking the Garnet employees te test their cholestrol levels. Hence to avoid this , Salco has to recommend even Renco employees to undergo the tests
Re: Two computer companies, Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to [#permalink]
27 Aug 2015, 18:14
no, option C actually is in context and does weaken. The argument is this: SaleCor's financial incentive to volunteer for Garnet's employees = SaleCor can save costs if Garnet's employees don't end up with serious ailments because of untreated cholesterol (remember Insurer has to pay for the expensive ailments too - which are more expensive to pay for than the cholesterol check/early treatment) Whereas this financial incentive is non-existent for SaleCor in the case of RenCo because RenCo's employees leave early. So, the assumption here is: 1) when employees with cholesterol are untreated for long = expensive ailments arise 2) RenCo employees don't stay long = no expensive ailments arise for SaleCor to pay (so why should SaleCor now waste money to sponsor for cholesterol check if these employees are not going to stay for a long enough period to incur SaleCor costs through expensive ailments = No FINANCIAL INCENTIVE for SaleCor)
Weaken: SaleCor's reasoning seems fair enough. But when would it be counterproductive for SaleCor. 1) assume these employees leaving RenCo (who has SaleCor as its insurer) end up with another company for which SaleCor is an insurer. Now SaleCor will end up paying for these employees (=who did not have the cholesterol check and are therefore more likely to end up with serious ailments which incur huge costs for the insurer). So in this case SaleCor still has the financial incentive to pay for those cholesterol checks 2) a less probable scenario - when some study finds all the RenCo employees are unhealthy and say 90% of them contract those ailments during the short time they are with RenCo and SaleCor has to pay for those treatments. So in this case SaleCor still has the financial incentive to pay for those cholesterol checks
Also, we are only weakening the fact that RenCo's employees short stay at company = NO financial incentive for SaleCor. So the answer must weaken this aspect only. (A) means no fin incentive for paying for Garnet too. it falsifies the unstated premise - "cholesterol checks & early treatment does help" (B) this only strengthens the case for SaleCor to an extent if those people talked about in the answer choice includes RenCo employees (C) a re-worded case I came up with for Weakening the argument (D) no impact on argument. but to the possible extent this can relate to the argument - same number of employees means SaleCor is saving as much from RenCo as it spends for Garner. nothing useful can be inferred from this info (E) note old age cannot mean higher cholesterol - nothing of this sort is mentioned. plus even if age is correlated with high cholesterol and strokes, the argument kind of strengthens SaleCor's case for RenCo.
hope this helps!
Re: Two computer companies, Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to
27 Aug 2015, 18:14