These guys want to reduce their health care costs. Therefore, any measure that drives up this cost is definitely a deal-breaker. Hence, their program for "out of shape" folks generates medical expenses that are higher than any possible reduction, their idea, in essence, would not work. Hence, the assumption that this scenario will not happen is critical to the rationale of the idea. Hence, the answer is C.
The aim of the argument is :to bring down the medical expenses incurred by employees who are out of shape.(as they incure high amount)
We are not concerned with those employees who are "inshape"
B is comparing costs incured by employees who are required to participate to who are not required to participate.
Argument is not tryin to do that..
in C, if we try to use the negation rule..
"The strenuous activities required of out-of-shape employees by the program would by themselves generate medical expenses greater than any reduction achieved by the program. "
If this is the thing then the program is not needed...
the argument falls apart..
thus C.
Here is what is wrong with B:
Assumption is something that has to be necessarily true BUT which is not already stated in the argument. So if assumption is not true the argument will fall apart. (Negation test)
B- The medical expenses incurred by employees who are required to participate in the fitness program would be less than those incurred by employees who are not required to participate.
# The medical expenses of fat-group don’t necessarily have to be lower than the fit group; even if their medical expenses are marginally lower than what they were before the exercise routine was mandated for them, we can justify the conclusion.
Whereas, if we negate C i.e. if the strenuous activity generates expenses greater than the potential savings, then we can’t justify implementing the exercise regime. C must be true and hence it is the answer