A company’s health program offers medical coverage for all of its full

Question

A company’s health program offers medical coverage for all of its fulltime employees. As part of the program, employees can choose from one of three plans, each of which offers a different mix of medical benefits depending on an individual’s particular needs. Thus, all fulltime employees who take advantage of the company’s program are sure to be covered for most, if not all, of their medical needs.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

(A). Part-time employees can also receive coverage from thecompany’s health program.

(B). None of the three plans costs the company significantly more than the other plans.

(C). There are no full-time employees whose medical needs are mostly uncovered by each of the three available plans.

(D). There is no alternative plan that would cover more medical needs than the plans in the current program.

(E). At least one of the three plans offers dental coverage for full-time employees whose health is impacted by their dental needs.

Source:   Kaplan Prep Plus 2020

Abhishek009 · Answer

Clean (C) reasons for negating the other options as under

(A) Part time employees - Out of scope.
(B) Cost to the Company - Out of scope / Irrelevant
(D) Alternative plan to the current Plan - Out of scope.
(E) Dental Coverage - Narrows the linne of discussion , hence incorrect...

Thus, IMHO (C) straight...

Ilhomjon98 · Answer

A company’s health program offers medical coverage for all of its fulltime employees. As part of the program, employees can choose from one of three plans, each of which offers a different mix of medical benefits depending on an individual’s particular needs. Thus, all fulltime employees who take advantage of the company’s program are sure to be covered for most, if not all, of their medical needs.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

(A). Part-time employees can also receive coverage from thecompany’s health program.

(B). None of the three plans costs the company significantly more than the other plans.

(C). There are no full-time employees whose medical needs are mostly uncovered by each of the three available plans.

(D). There is no alternative plan that would cover more medical needs than the plans in the current program.

(E). At least one of the three plans offers dental coverage for full-time employees whose health is impacted by their dental needs.

Hi, I thought that " uncovered " would mean to find ,but it seems I was wrong 
what does it mean "uncovered" here?
could someone explain, please?

shivamlohiya007 · Answer

Please explain why option C is correct

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Whoever wrote this question got a little creative with the use of the word "uncovered."

"Uncover" is generally understood to mean either to remove something covering something or, as you said, to find.

The plans would not "uncover" the needs.

The sentence should use "not covered."

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE

The question directly asks for an  “assumption,”  making this an Assumption question.

STEP 2: UNTANGLE THE STIMULUS

“Thus”  indicates the author’s conclusion: full-time employees who take advantage of the company’s health program will have most or all of their medical needs covered. The evidence is that employees can choose from one of three plans, each of which offers a different mix of benefits.

STEP 3: PREDICT THE ANSWER

For the conclusion to be valid, each employee would have access to a plan that covers all or most of that employee’s individual medical needs. However, despite the variety among the available plans, there are still only three to choose from. The author fails to consider that some people may have a set of medical needs that are not adequately covered by any of the three available options. For this argument to work, the author must assume that every employee will find what he or she needs in at least one of those three options.

STEP 4: EVALUATE THE CHOICES

(C)  is correct. If nobody has all or most of their needs uncovered, that’s just another way of saying that they all will have their needs covered.

(A)  is irrelevant. The argument is about full-time employees, so it doesn’t matter what’s available for part-time employees.

(B)  is irrelevant. The argument is only about whether employees will have coverage, not how much it will cost the company.

(D)  is not an assumption that is necessary for the argument. The author is not saying the health program is the best possible program. The author is only arguing that it will provide sufficient coverage, and that could be valid even if better options exist.

(E)  is not necessary. The argument does not claim that everything has to be covered. It only has to be true that most needs are covered. So there doesn’t have to be dental coverage for this argument to work.

Answer: C

jerryharlands · Answer

The correct answer is (C). The argument assumes that every full-time employee's medical needs are sufficiently covered by at least one of the three available plans. If there were full-time employees whose medical needs are mostly uncovered by each of the three plans, the argument would not hold.

A company’s health program offers medical coverage for all of its full

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

A company’s health program offers medical coverage for all of its full

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