Garnet and Renco

[60sec]

Which of the following most logically completes the passage?

 

 

Garnet and RenCo each provide health care for their employees. Garnet pays for both testing of its employees’ cholesterol levels and treatment of high cholesterol. This policy saves Garnet money, since high cholesterol left untreated for many years leads to conditions that require very expensive treatment. However, RenCo dose not have the same financial incentive to adopt such a policy, because ______.

 

 

 

A. early treatment of high cholesterol dose not entirely eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life

 

B. the mass media regularly feature stories encouraging people to maintain diets that are low in cholesterol

 

C. RenCo has significantly more employees than Garnet has

 

D. RenCo’s employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet’s employees

 

E. the average length of time an employee stays with RenCo is less than it is with Garnet

 

OA

E

why not

D

:rolleyes:

[karmaholic]

Cant be D because it is not supported.

 

E, on the other hand, goes along very well with "since high cholesterol left untreated for many years leads to conditions". This implies that people are more likely to stay employed with Garnet. And this ensures that the early treatment is more beneficial in terms of finance involved. RenCo does not enjoy this advantage because people stay for a shorter period of time (E).

[crasnean]

It's C. The author of the argument mention the financial incentive that Garnet has to invest on the short term testing and treatement of cholesterol problems: the cost of doing testing and treatement at the present time will aleviate the long term expenses. Financial incentive , as you can see, means investing in the present for the saving in the future.Now RenCo doesn't have the same financial incentive because as E states they don't have employee who actually stay in the company long enough for the present investment to be profitable.

why not D? Because D doesn't state anything special except for the fact that RenCo employee and Garnet employee have at least the same level of cholesterol. It doesn't provide an argument strong enough that RenCo would use to motivate why they are not finacially interested by investing in present testing in treating the cholesterol problems of their employee.

[60sec]

Thanks karmaholic. I was struck between D and E.

 

Definitely, E seems to be the best one, but I would like to clarify what excaltly is wrong with D?

D : Low cholesterol levels means the company may spend more money on diagnozing, unnecessarily. This unnecssarily spending may be less than the money that could be spent on untreated patients.

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Thanks crasnean, seems we were typing at the same type.

 

It's C. .

I think, you meant E.

 

D doesn't state anything special except .

Can you see my reasoning with D.

[karmaholic]

60sec, D says "unlikely to have higher cholestrol levels". This doesnt mean that the cholestrol levels are necessarily low...they could be normal or moderate.

 

Moreover, the argument is about people with "high colestrol levels"..Garnet pays for both testing of its employees’ cholesterol levels and treatment of high cholesterol.

 

D really doesnt help.

[60sec]

Thanks, your explanation really helps.:p

[crasnean]

Sorry, I wanted to say E and I wrote C.

[andres]

It is not D because D says "unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels". Still you can have similar levels and this would strengthen RenCo's financial incentive according to the reasoning gave.

 

E it is, because of what karmaholic states.

[crasnean]

I understand 6osec's initial reasonning with option D. This is actually the distractor answer choice because unlikely to have higher cholestrol levels can be interpreted as "at least the same or lower level of cholesterol". while the first possibility would provide a good financial incentive, the second would rather say why is not financially convinient for RenCoto invest in treatment and testing of cholesterol problems.. So D is to open to interpretation, not clear enough.

[andres]

ok. But since you do not have evidence to show if it is the same or a lower level then it weakens the conclusion. That was what I meant and what karmaholic states correctly on the first post. On the other hand I think there is no evidence to assume that some of the treatments are unnecessary. This would be an assumption.

[crasnean]

yes, I agree with you andres.