MartyMurray wrote:
A Company is considering offering a wellness program to its 3000 employees in order to generate multiple benefits, including a reduction in healthcare costs. Before offering the program company wide, the Company has tested it by offering it to 500 randomly selected employees. Of those 500, 250 signed up for the program and 250 didn't. Over the next year, the average per person healthcare cost of the 250 who signed up for the program was approximately $300, while that of the 250 who didn't sign up was approximately $500. Clearly, offering the program company wide would result in reduction of healthcare costs.
The author has arrived at the following conclusion:
offering the program company wide would result in reduction of healthcare costs
The conclusion is supported by the following premise:
Over the next year, the average per person healthcare cost of the 250 who signed up for the program was approximately $300, while that of the 250 who didn't sign up was approximately $500.
We see that the author has reasoned that, since the the average per person healthcare cost of the employees who signed up for the program was lower than that of the employees who didn't sign up, the company would achieve a reduction in healthcare costs by offering the program.
Which of the following, if true, would must seriously undermine the force of the evidence presented?
The correct answer must "undermine the force of the evidence presented." In other words, it must weaken the support the premise provides for the conclusion.
A. For the year during which the wellness program was tested, the healthcare costs associated with some of the 2500 employees not offered the program were well under $300.
This choice has no effect on the argument because, in any average, there can be outliers. So, this choice does not change what we know about the scenario. It remains the case that, on average, employees that signed up for the program had lower costs than those who did not sign up.
The fact that "the healthcare costs associated with some of the 2500 employees not offered the program were well under $300" doesn't clearly indicate anything about the effectiveness of the program because it doesn't tell us what the average cost was for those not offered the program, just what the costs were for some of them. Also, it could be that, among those who signed up, there were some whose healthcare costs were well under $300.
Eliminate.
B. Even after being made aware of the results of the test, many of the Company's employees indicated that they would not sign up for the program.
This choice doesn't materially change what we know.
For one thing, we already know that half of the employees offered the program didn't sign up. So, even the results of the test indicate that, probably, many employees won't sign up.
For another, if the program works, as long as some employees sign up, the company will save at least some money.
So, the fact that many may not sign up doesn't mean that the company won't save money.
Eliminate.
C. At another company of similar size with no wellness program, the annual average per person healthcare cost is approximately $250.
This information about another company doesn't change the fact that, at the company in question, the healthcare costs of employees who signed up for the program were lower than those of employees who didn't sign up.
So, regardless of what this choice says, the information we have about the company in question seems to support the conclusion.
Eliminate.
D. The average per person healthcare cost of the 2500 employees not offered the program was approximately $400 for the year over which the wellness program was tested.
The conclusion of the argument is that "offering the program company wide would result in reduction of healthcare costs."
So, this choice indicates that the conclusion may not be correct by showing that, when the company offered the program to employees, the average healthcare cost was the same as when it didn't.
After, the average of the averages of $300 for the 250 employees and $500 for the 250 employees offered the program is $400, which this choice indicates is the same as the average for the employees not offered the program, $400. So, offering the program didn't change the average healthcare cost.
Why would that outcome occur? Well, it could be that the 250 employees who signed up were already health conscious. So, signing up for the program didn't make much difference since their per person costs would have been lower without their signing up for the program.
It true that we don't know for sure whether more than 50% of the employees would sign up if the program were offered to all the employees or whether, in such a case, the company would save money.
All the same, the fact that the average was $400 for both the group of employees offered the program and the group not offered the program is a clear reason to doubt that offering the program will make any difference. So, this choice clearly does "undermine the force of the evidence provided."
E. The 10 employees with the highest healthcare costs for the year over which the wellness program was tested were ones who had signed up for the program.
As we saw in discussing choice (A), any average can have outliers, and the fact that there are outliers may not change what the average indicates.
In this case, the fact that these 10 outliers were among those who signed up doesn't change the fact that the average cost of those who signed up was lower than that of those who didn't. So, regardless of what this choice says, the information on the difference in average costs provided by the premise still supports the conclusion.
Eliminate.
The correct answer is (D).
Marty, You are wrong here, Why would be there a 50/50 split, it could be 70/30 or 60/40? The passage never says that the 50/50 split will be true in case of 3000 employees also. Yes, the 50/50 split might be true for a group of 500 people but the same cannot be said for group of 3000, thats a big assumption that you are making, People are inherently different so believing that the how the first group of 500 behaved in response to program would apply to rest other three groups of 500 people is completely ridiculous.
27 Feb 2021, 07:09
close
