mydreammba wrote:
Two computer companies, Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to provide health insurance for their employees. Because early treatment of high cholesterol can prevent strokes that would otherwise occur several years later, Salcor encourages Garnet employees to have their cholesterol levels tested and to obtain early treatment for high cholesterol. Renco employees generally remain with Renco only for a few years, however. Therefore, Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to Renco employees.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Early treatment of high cholesterol does not eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life.
(B) People often obtain early treatment for high cholesterol on their own.
(C) Garnet hires a significant number of former employees of Renco.
(D) Renco and Garnet have approximately the same number of employees.
(E) Renco employees are not, on average, significantly younger than Garnet employees.
SOLUTIONPassage AnalysisTwo computer companies, Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to provide health insurance for their employees.
• Salcor(S) provides health insurance to the employees of two computer companies- Garnet (G) and Renco (R)Because early treatment of high cholesterol can prevent strokes that would otherwise occur several years later, Salcor encourages Garnet employees to have their cholesterol levels tested and to obtain early treatment for high cholesterol
• S encourages G employees to test cholesterol levels and get early treatment for high cholesterol.
• This is because early treatment of high cholesterol can prevent strokes due to these from happening. (If strokes happen the insurance providers will have to pay for the expensive treatment)Renco employees generally remain with Renco only for a few years, however.
•
Employees of R usually stay with R only for a few years. So, the likelihood of them having a stroke during their employment in R is very low.Therefore, Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to Renco employees.
•
Thus, S does not have any financial gains in encouraging R employees to check their cholesterol levels and take early treatment. Conclusion: Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to Renco employees.Question stem AnalysisWhich of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
We need to find the statement that weakens the given conclusion.PrethinkingWeakener frameworkWhat new information will make us believe less that Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to Renco employees?
Given that
• early treatment of high cholesterol can prevent strokes that would otherwise occur several years later
• Salcor encourages Garnet employees to have their cholesterol levels tested and to obtain early treatment for high cholesterol.
• Renco employees generally remain with Renco only for a few years.
Weakener 1- Due to changes in lifestyle, the gap in years between diagnosis of high cholesterol and occurrence of stroke is decreasing. If this is true, then R employees with high cholesterol may get strokes even when they are working with R. This weakens our belief in the conclusion that S lacks any financial incentive to provide encouragement to R employees.
Weakener 2- A large number of employees who leave R go to G or another company to which employee insurance is provided by S. If this is true, then it would make sense for S to provide the same encouragement to R employees too. Hence, this weakens our belief in the conclusion.
Option Analysis(A) Early treatment of high cholesterol does not eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life.
It is not necessary to eliminate the possibility of stroke, it is good enough to reduce the probability. Also this option does not talk about the employees of R. On the whole, it is an incorrect answer.(B) People often obtain early treatment for high cholesterol on their own.
This is an irrelevant answer choice since whether people often do it or not, we do not know if the ones with risk of stroke do it. We know that irrespective of this, S is encouraging G employees to get cholesterol levels checked, and that S is not doing the same for R employees. This option does not in any way weaken the conclusion about R employees. Hence it is an incorrect option.(C) Garnet hires a significant number of former employees of Renco.This weakener is in line with our prethought weakener 2. Hence it is the right answer.(D) Renco and Garnet have approximately the same number of employees.
The number of employees is not relevant in this context. Even if R had a very low number of employees, it does not mean S needn’t bother about the expense of Stroke treatment.(E) Renco employees are not, on average, significantly younger than Garnet employees.
Whether or not Renco employees are younger, if they are diagnosed for high cholesterol, there is a chance for them to have a stroke years later. The impact of age on the likelihood of stroke, in high cholesterol cases is out of scope. Hence this option is irrelevant.Thus the correct answer is C.
_________________