Garnet and RenCo each provide health care for their employees. Garnet

E. The only one which talks about the time frame. the average length of time an employee stays with RenCo is less than it is with Garnet
which is of importance because it is said that This policy saves Garnet money, since high cholesterol left untreated for many years leads to conditions that require very expensive treatment

think about it this way, the stimulus clearly specifies that HC levels left untreated will lead to sever conditions(not necessarily stroke but other conditions that are way expensive) but still, say if this is hold true, A would still not give us a reason to justify Renco position because there is a possibility that Renco would have to pay expensive treatments. We need some other reason that would tell us that there is small possibility Renco will have to pay in the future..that would be E, employees are not going to be there for long

As far as I know average is not a good indicator for any stats. In this case, it's been argued that average length of time an employee stays with RenCo is less than with Garnet. But in reality, this average might be less just because of few employees. Other employees may very well have length of time greater than that with Garnet. Considering this factor, is E still correct as many have suggested on this forum? Can someone please explain?

Also, I chose C because I thought if RenCo has more number of employees then upfront expenditure may be much more than the Garnet and my assumption is that not many employees will necessarily require expensive treatment. Hence, RenCo may not have the same advantage as Garnet. I was not fully convinced with this option either, but it sounded better than E.

Thanks fluke for the explanation. Perhaps I am still lacking the depth to understand these questions. Even after reading your explanation I don't understand the difference between capacity and incentive, and why would capacity make "C" a stronger candidate? I am always wary about choosing an option with "average". Do you know any strategy when I am in dilemma about these options?

Still the question, whats wrong with C? Explanations will be appreciated.

We are looking for a good reason why it's RenCo has no reason to spend like Garnet on treating high-cholesterol of its employees.
It's given if left untreated for many years, it becomes more costly.

While I was reading this, I thought to myself aren't they planning to resign earlier than that.

It is not C because the reason for the incentive is more about avoiding future extra costs. Time is more of the issue. We need to assume a little more about the significance of number of employees if we are to take this as correct response.

D and E are contenders to me. But, E is best because it shows that RenCo doesn't have to worry because employees aren't going to be employed with them that long.

Answer: E

Hi,

I think I should offer my two cents to the reason why C cannot be the answer. This is a doubt expressed by a number of people.

Let's start with a basic question - what incentive does Garnet has to allow cholesterol testing?

The reason is clearly given in the passage that it allows it to save money that would have been spent on treatment of cholesterol, once its employees gets affected (after some years).

Now, what makes us think that a similar policy won't help Renco save money? Are employees of Renco any different from Garnet?

Some people have opined that it would lead to a lot of upfront cost for Renco because it has significantly more employees than Garnet. But with the same reason, one can say that allowing cholesterol testing should save Renco significantly more since it has larger number of employees.

So, if the proportion of employees that are going to be treated for cholesterol are same for Garnet and Renco, both the companies have the financial incentive to support cholesterol testing.

So, Renco has the same financial incentive as Garnet if there is no difference in the employees of the two companies.

Option E specifically talks about the difference in employees of Renco and Garnet. Renco employees stay in the company for shorter period of time than Garnet employees.

Therefore, option E is correct.

Hope this helps

Let me know if further clarity is needed.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

Bumping for review and further discussion
New GmatClub project Click here

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 does not entirely eliminate the possibility of stroke later in life....that may apply to both firms...irrelevant
B. the mass media regularly feature stories encouraging people to maintain diets that are low in cholesterol...so what?
C. RenCo has significantly more employees than Garnet has....employee strength is irrelevant
D. RenCo's employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet's employeeseven if it is equal...the financial benefit should have accrued...
E. the average length of time an employee stays with RenCo is less than it is with Garnetcorrect..note the premise-[color=#0000ff]""This policy saves Garnet money, since high cholesterol left untreated for many years leads to conditions that require very expensive treatment""...if average time spent is less less benefit accrues from it as cases of " high cholesterol left untreated for many years leading to conditions requiring very expensive treatment " .. may not be there.....[/color]

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...

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..

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 does not have the same financial incentive to adopt such a policy, because __________.

A. early treatment of high cholesterol does 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

E. Let's start with a basic question - what incentive does Garnet has to allow cholesterol testing?

The reason is clearly given in the passage that it allows it to save money that would have been spent on treatment of cholesterol, once its employees gets affected (after some years).

Now, what makes us think that a similar policy won't help Renco save money? Are employees of Renco any different from Garnet?

Some people have opined that it would lead to a lot of upfront cost for Renco because it has significantly more employees than Garnet. But with the same reason, one can say that allowing cholesterol testing should save Renco significantly more since it has larger number of employees.

So, if the proportion of employees that are going to be treated for cholesterol are same for Garnet and Renco, both the companies have the financial incentive to support cholesterol testing.

So, Renco has the same financial incentive as Garnet if there is no difference in the employees of the two companies.

Option E specifically talks about the difference in employees of Renco and Garnet. Renco employees stay in the company for shorter period of time than Garnet employees.

Therefore, option E is correct.

Hope this helps

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 does not have the same financial incentive to adopt such a policy, because __________.

A. early treatment of high cholesterol does not entirely eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life..stroke is not the only thing requiring treatment... it could be any reason
B. the mass media regularly feature stories encouraging people to maintain diets that are low in cholesterolthats common to both groups and the society at large
C. RenCo has significantly more employees than Garnet hasmore numbers is not imp
D. RenCo's employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet's employeesbut they could have equal levels...
E. the average length of time an employee stays with RenCo is less than it is with Garnetsince high cholesterol left untreated for many years leads to conditions that require very expensive treatment... here the years are less so its ok not to follow same ... CORRECT

E. Financial incentive here implies financial motivation. Now it's worth paying for both services if employees stick on for good number of years in the company. Whereas if employees who join do not stick around for too long, there is no point in these cholestrol tests, they might in fact only raise the expenses for the company further possibly through new recruitments, benefits etc. E stresses on this explanation and resolves the paradox.

C. While significantly higher number of employees may tell us that the company would likely have more expenditure, it is irrelevant. What if Renco's employees are under long term contracts ? Then in that case there is a significant motivation to pay for both these services. As there is a lot of uncertainty here, we can safely eliminate this choice.

D. RenCo's employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet's employees

Trap: Its a strengthen question not an assumption.

On first thought this looks very promising but if we read closely then we will find the underlined text, which indirectly implies that though Renco's employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol but it can be equal. If its equal then Renco also has the same incentive as Garnet.

Answer: (E).

sir even i am more inclined towards c because i thought in e it is possible the average time of garnet is 25 years where as renCo can have 24 years so that doesn't make much impact but if it is mention that average is significantly less than than it will be perfect. Please explain
thanks in advance

Dear Experts,

Why is D incorrect?

Say, Renco's employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet's employees, then Renco would not have any financial incentive as such right? When Renco knows that its employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels, then it probably isn't seeing any savings as such. In other words, it is not having the same financial incentive as Garnet.

Kindly help resolve!

Posted from my mobile device

Choice say "RenCo has significantly more employees than Garnet has"
If Renco has more employee, and if we assume the worst case that all of the employees at Renco and Garnet would have high cholestrol. Then, Renco may have much more employees who may need expensive treatment for high cholesterol left untreated for many years. Therefore, to prevent a more expensive treatment, Renco would have a greater financial incentive to pay for both testing of its employees' cholesterol levels and treatment of high cholesterol, which is the opposite of what you want in this question.