Manager S: Our company provides a small annual monetary benefit for

Question

Manager S: Our company provides a small annual monetary benefit for each employee who submits documentation to the company proving that the employee had a comprehensive medical exam in a given year. The policy has been successful in increasing the number of employees who get the exam annually precisely because the benefit requires this specific form of documentation, and this success has resulted in improved employee health.

Manager T: I agree that the overall policy has improved employee health, and it is good to improve employee health. However, the required documentation resulted in our company having access to an employee's private medical data. The benefit to employee health is not worth compromising employee privacy.

Select for  Sentence 1  the sentence that best completes Manager S's argument, and select for  Sentence 2  the sentence that best completes Manager T's argument. Make only two selections, one in each column.

ID: 700257

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Manager S: Our company provides a small annual monetary benefit for each employee who  submits documentation to the company proving  that the employee had a comprehensive medical exam in a given year. The policy has been successful in increasing the number of employees who get the exam annually precisely because  the benefit requires this specific form of documentation , and this success has resulted in improved employee health.

Manager S's focus is on this particular form of documentation. The benefit is given to the one who submits this documentation and to submit this document, employees have started getting annual check ups done. So the documentation requirement is what led to better health. Hence this manager seems to be promoting the document requirement. Hence as the final sentence, his conclusion is:  Our company should continue requiring the specific documentation that it does  (ANSWER)

Look at this option sentence: Promoting employee health with financial incentives is worthwhile.
The entire focus is on the documentation - how that requirement leads to better health so this sentence is not better suited here.

Manager T: I agree that the overall policy has improved employee health, and it is good to improve employee health. However,  the required documentation resulted in  our company having access to an employee's private medical data. The benefit to employee health is not worth compromising employee privacy.

Now, he is pointing to a failing of the "required documentation" - that it resulted in access to private data. Hence, the last sentence of this manager's argument rightly is:  Our company should not require that form of documentation.  (ANSWER)

Elite097 · Answer

KarishmaB  for sentence 1, why not E?

Posted from my mobile device

Maxsparrow · Answer

I thought of 2 reasons why not E:

First, I always think two part analysis answers as somehow 1 connected pair of answers. 2 and 3 connected the best
Second, the passage already mention that the incentive is promoting the impact in the sentence prior to the last one (that we need to insert). Using E will make a redundant effect of the argument.

vikg007 · Answer

On deeper thought, one may realize that we have not really explored the scope of improving employee health through financial incentives, even if it's possible (may need further thought here. Hence, it would be unlikely that Manager T would side with financial incentives being good for employee health.

Gemmie · Answer

Sentence 1: Our company should continue requiring the specific documentation that it does.

Sentence 1 completes Manager S's argument by affirming the effectiveness and necessity of the current documentation requirement.

Manager S emphasizes that the policy has increased the number of employees receiving comprehensive medical exams due to the specific documentation requirement.

Therefore, the logical completion of their argument is to advocate for the continuation of this requirement, as it has been successful in achieving its intended goal.

Sentence 2: Our company should not require that form of documentation.

Sentence 2 completes Manager T's argument by expressing concern over the privacy implications of the required documentation.

Manager T acknowledges the positive outcome of improved employee health but argues that this benefit does not outweigh the potential invasion of employee privacy.

​​​​​​​By stating that promoting employee health with financial incentives is counterproductive, Manager T suggests that the negative impact on privacy offsets the positive health outcomes, making the overall approach less effective or beneficial.

GMATinsight · Answer

Answer: Options B | C Please check the video solution for clarity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_cZFd01Qso Please Like and Subscribe to YouTube channel if you like the video and access 1100+ more FREE videos . Every subscription matters!!! If you like to subscribe to modular courses on Quant and DI then please visit the following link: https://gmatinsight.com/gmat-2/

lily123400 · Answer

This is how I thought of this question:
in statement 1: although there is a mention of financial compensation, it's given that it is "small." In addition, "because the benefit requires this specific form of documentation" there is emphasis on the documentation given in the argument. 
I was between B and E for statement 1 but chose B (even though honestly intuitively E sounds better) because of the added empahsis.

in statement 2: they don't mention finances at all but focus on the documentation. Only statements C and D are negative so it must be one or the other. C is much stronger since it relates to the documentation. Choosing C also affirmed my choice of B earlier since the two arguments are more aligned

amol2807 · Answer

KarishmaB , can you eloborate here please?

KarishmaB · Answer

Pasting from my comment above,

Look at this option sentence: Promoting employee health with financial incentives is worthwhile. 
   The entire focus is on the documentation - how that requirement leads to better health... so this sentence is not better suited here.

Had the discussion been of whether the company's loss due to financial incentive is justified, then this statement would have had relevance. The discussion is about the documentation which is continued by Manager T. What is the main point the two managers are discussing - the pros and cons of the documentation the company asks for.

minionbaba · Answer

Hi  Bunuel , this question is also available in Data Insights Review 2025-2026. You can add that tag too. Thank you!

Bunuel · Answer

Added the tag. Thank you!

priyalsethia · Answer

why not E for the first part

Usernamevisible · Answer

priyalsethia

What does S spend most of his argument proving?
 
Notice the emphasis:
 
 Not just that incentives work.  
 Not just that health improved.  
 Specifically that  the documentation requirement is the reason the policy succeeded.    
Then he says:
 
So his structure is:
 Documentation requirement → more exams → better health 
Therefore:
 Conclusion:  keep the documentation requirement.
 
Why E is too broad
Suppose S were trying to prove:
 
To support that, he only needs:
 
 Incentive → better health.   
The discussion about the  specific documentation requirement  becomes largely unnecessary.
But S goes out of his way to defend that exact feature because T is attacking that exact feature.
 
Debate test
T says:
 
What is S responding to?
 
 Is he defending financial incentives in general? NO 
 Is he defending the documentation requirement? YES  
In argument-completion questions, the best conclusion is usually the one that matches the  specific point being defended , not a broader statement that could also be true.
So:
 
  E  = supported by the argument, but too general.  
  B  = the precise conclusion the argument is built to justify.   
Therefore  Sentence 1 = "Our company should continue requiring the specific documentation that it does." .

egmat · Answer

Hi priyalsethia,

Your instinct toward  E  makes sense, because S clearly likes the policy and E sounds like a positive, on-board conclusion. But the test for Sentence 1 isn't "does it sound positive?" - it's  "does it follow from the exact reasoning S gave?"

Look at where S puts the emphasis: the policy worked  "precisely because the benefit requires this specific form of documentation."  Every bit of S's support is about  the documentation requirement  - that requirement is what pushed people to get exams, which improved health. So the conclusion that flows naturally is to  keep doing the thing that worked :  "Our company should continue requiring the specific documentation that it does."  (Option 2)

Now test  E  against that support:  "Promoting employee health with financial incentives is worthwhile."  S never argued that the  incentive  is the active ingredient - in fact S calls the benefit "small." The credit goes to the  documentation , not the money. E quietly swaps the subject from "the documentation" to "financial incentives," so it doesn't actually conclude S's argument - it concludes a different one.

There's also the pairing check. The two managers are debating one thing: whether to keep requiring that documentation. Sentence 2 lands on  "should not require that form of documentation"  - directly about the documentation. Sentence 1 should mirror that same axis (Option 2), and E doesn't.

Quick word-play test to lock it in:  suppose S's last support sentence had instead read,  "and this success shows that paying people to be healthy pays off."  Now the focus is the  incentive  - and  E  would fit perfectly. Because the real sentence keeps the focus on the documentation, E falls out and Option 2 wins.

Answer: Column 1 = Our company should continue requiring the specific documentation that it does.; Column 2 = Our company should not require that form of documentation.

Manager S: Our company provides a small annual monetary benefit for

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Sentence 1	Sentence 2
		Requiring the documentation has no effect on employees.
		Our company should continue requiring the specific documentation that it does.
		Our company should not require that form of documentation.
		Promoting employee health with financial incentives is counterproductive.
		Promoting employee health with financial incentives is worthwhile.

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

Manager S: Our company provides a small annual monetary benefit for

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards