pb_india wrote:
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 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
G pays for testing and treatment while R does not pay for testing.
Paying for testing helps G save money because if left untreated for a long time, treatment is expensive.
But this benefit does not accrue for R.
What could be a reason why this benefit does not accrue for R?
What if employees at R do not stay long. Then the problems that appear because of untreated cholesterol for a long time may not appear in R's employees. They may leave the company before they appear.
(A) early treatment of high cholesterol dose not entirely eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life
No discussion on stroke.
(B) the mass media regularly feature stories encouraging people to maintain diets that are low in cholesterol
The same mass media is available to all employees of both companies.
(C) RenCo has significantly more employees than Garnet has
If R has more employees, it would lead to higher testing costs but could save much more money in the future.
Say Garnet has 100 employees and pays $1000 for their testing now. If it detects 2 cases early enough, say, this could save it $20,000 in future.
Say RenCo has 200 employees and pays $2000 for their testing now. If it detects 4 cases early enough (assuming same proportion of cases in employees), this could save it $40,000 in future. So every $1000 expense is still saving them $20,000.
Hence this point is irrelevant.
(D) RenCo’s employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet’s employees
The comparison of the levels of cholesterol is irrelevant. The only distinction we are making is normal cholesterol vs high cholesterol. How high is irrelevant.
Yes, if there were a reason why high cholesterol was rarer among employees of R (say their jobs required them to be physically v active), then it makes sense that they may not want to invest in testing.
(E) the average length of time an employee stays with RenCo is less than it is with Garnet
This could be a good reason why R may not accrue the same benefit. We don't know exactly how much should be the difference in time spent but as a general rule, less the time spent, less likely are the employees to show symptoms and for the company to provide expensive treatment. We don't have to assume anything about the difference in the tenure of stay. If this can be a valid reason, it is our answer.
Answer (E)