Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack
GMAT Club

 It is currently 23 Mar 2017, 23:30

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Two computer companies, Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 560
Location: United States
GPA: 3.86
WE: Accounting (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 16

Two computer companies, Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jan 2012, 02:34
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

94% (01:38) correct 6% (00:00) wrong based on 62 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Two computer companies, Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to...

I came close two answers C and D.....and the answer is C .....but Can anyone please explain why the answer is not E.......????
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Attachments

CR1.jpg [ 105.91 KiB | Viewed 3354 times ]

CR1.jpg [ 105.91 KiB | Viewed 3487 times ]

_________________

Last edited by mydreammba on 11 Jan 2012, 04:10, edited 1 time in total.
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2010
Posts: 311
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2012, 02:48
I came close two answers C and D.....and the answer is C .....but Can anyone please explain why the answer is not C.......

?????

Director
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 560
Location: United States
GPA: 3.86
WE: Accounting (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 16

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2012, 17:49
prab wrote:
I came close two answers C and D.....and the answer is C .....but Can anyone please explain why the answer is not C.......

?????

Sorry it was a Typo error the answer is C but i marked E......
_________________

Intern
Joined: 31 Jul 2011
Posts: 13
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2012, 20:28
Option E actually strengthens the argument. If Renco employees are not younger than Garnet employees then Renco employees can be affected by stroke -> Salco has no financial incentive by asking Renco employees to test their cholestrol levels

But option C rightly weakens the argument. If Garnet hires some of the ex-Renco employees, these employees can be affected by stroke and Salco would end up paying for this. -> Salco will also lose the financial incentive it had got , by asking the Garnet employees te test their cholestrol levels. Hence to avoid this , Salco has to recommend even Renco employees to undergo the tests
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2010
Posts: 311
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2012, 21:49
i might be mistaken but, isn't the option C only the option in context here.
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2011
Posts: 260
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.95
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 20

### Show Tags

11 Jan 2012, 09:53
prab wrote:
i might be mistaken but, isn't the option C only the option in context here.

Even A is also a contender because of the word 'possibility' --> stroke MAY or MAY NOT occur. If it occurs, it strengths the statement otherwise it weakens.
_________________

-------------------------
-Aravind Chembeti

Intern
Joined: 12 Jun 2013
Posts: 10
GRE 1: 322 Q159 V163
GPA: 4
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [2] , given: 26

Re: Two computer companies, Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Aug 2015, 19:14
2
KUDOS
no, option C actually is in context and does weaken.
The argument is this: SaleCor's financial incentive to volunteer for Garnet's employees = SaleCor can save costs if Garnet's employees don't end up with serious ailments because of untreated cholesterol (remember Insurer has to pay for the expensive ailments too - which are more expensive to pay for than the cholesterol check/early treatment)
Whereas this financial incentive is non-existent for SaleCor in the case of RenCo because RenCo's employees leave early.
So, the assumption here is: 1) when employees with cholesterol are untreated for long = expensive ailments arise
2) RenCo employees don't stay long = no expensive ailments arise for SaleCor to pay (so why should SaleCor now waste money to sponsor for cholesterol check if these employees are not going to stay for a long enough period to incur SaleCor costs through expensive ailments = No FINANCIAL INCENTIVE for SaleCor)

Weaken:
SaleCor's reasoning seems fair enough. But when would it be counterproductive for SaleCor.
1) assume these employees leaving RenCo (who has SaleCor as its insurer) end up with another company for which SaleCor is an insurer. Now SaleCor will end up paying for these employees (=who did not have the cholesterol check and are therefore more likely to end up with serious ailments which incur huge costs for the insurer). So in this case SaleCor still has the financial incentive to pay for those cholesterol checks
2) a less probable scenario - when some study finds all the RenCo employees are unhealthy and say 90% of them contract those ailments during the short time they are with RenCo and SaleCor has to pay for those treatments. So in this case SaleCor still has the financial incentive to pay for those cholesterol checks

Also, we are only weakening the fact that RenCo's employees short stay at company = NO financial incentive for SaleCor.
So the answer must weaken this aspect only.
(A) means no fin incentive for paying for Garnet too. it falsifies the unstated premise - "cholesterol checks & early treatment does help"
(B) this only strengthens the case for SaleCor to an extent if those people talked about in the answer choice includes RenCo employees
(C) a re-worded case I came up with for Weakening the argument
(D) no impact on argument. but to the possible extent this can relate to the argument - same number of employees means SaleCor is saving as much from RenCo as it spends for Garner. nothing useful can be inferred from this info
(E) note old age cannot mean higher cholesterol - nothing of this sort is mentioned. plus even if age is correlated with high cholesterol and strokes, the argument kind of strengthens SaleCor's case for RenCo.

hope this helps!
Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2015
Posts: 51
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 610 Q49 V27
GPA: 2.5
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 42

Re: Two computer companies, Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jan 2016, 05:05
C is a sufficient one:
It is possible that employees who jumper from R to G didn't receive any early treatment of cholesterol and worked for a long time.
This situation according to the argument ( strokes would occur several years later) will make the insurer be incentive.

E actually strengthens the argument.
Re: Two computer companies, Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to   [#permalink] 24 Jan 2016, 05:05
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 Garnet and RenCo each provide health care 2 25 Jan 2015, 22:24
8 Companies are rapidly adopting computer technology 12 22 Nov 2013, 23:10
3 Garnet and RenCo each provide health care for their 9 27 Apr 2012, 19:19
4 The companies that are the prime purchasers of computer 24 18 Apr 2010, 12:07
Garnet and RenCo each provide health care for their 4 12 Jan 2008, 07:36
Display posts from previous: Sort by