Two computer companies, Garnet and Renco, each pay Salcor to provide health insurance for their employees. Because early treatment of...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
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?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| 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. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by establishing that Salcor provides insurance to both companies, then shows that Salcor encourages preventive care for Garnet employees. It then reveals that Renco has high employee turnover, and concludes that this turnover removes Salcor's financial incentive to invest in preventive care for Renco employees.
Main Conclusion:
Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide cholesterol testing encouragement to Renco employees.
Logical Structure:
The argument relies on a cost-benefit logic: Since cholesterol treatment prevents strokes years later, but Renco employees leave within a few years, Salcor would pay for the treatment now but wouldn't save money from prevented strokes later (because those employees would be gone). Therefore, it's not financially worthwhile for Salcor to encourage preventive care for Renco employees.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that reduces our belief in the conclusion that Salcor lacks financial incentive to encourage cholesterol testing for Renco employees
Precision of Claims
The argument makes a specific claim about Salcor's financial incentives based on employee tenure patterns. The key is the timing mismatch between when Renco employees leave (few years) and when stroke prevention benefits would materialize (several years later)
Strategy
To weaken this argument, we need to find scenarios where Salcor would actually have financial incentives to encourage cholesterol testing for Renco employees, despite their short tenure. We should look for ways that Salcor could benefit financially in the short term or ways that the timing issue doesn't matter as much as the argument assumes
Early treatment of high cholesterol does not eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life. This choice doesn't weaken the argument because the argument is based on preventing strokes that 'would otherwise occur,' not eliminating all stroke possibility. Even if treatment doesn't prevent 100% of strokes, as long as it prevents some strokes that would have occurred, Salcor still saves money on those prevented cases. This doesn't address the core timing issue between when employees leave Renco and when stroke prevention benefits would materialize.
People often obtain early treatment for high cholesterol on their own. This choice actually supports rather than weakens the argument. If people get treatment on their own, this reduces Salcor's need to encourage testing, which aligns with the conclusion that Salcor lacks incentive to provide encouragement to Renco employees. This doesn't resolve the fundamental timing mismatch that drives the argument's logic.
Garnet hires a significant number of former employees of Renco. This choice directly weakens the argument by creating a pathway for Salcor to benefit from encouraging cholesterol testing for Renco employees. If former Renco employees move to Garnet, Salcor would still be insuring these same people when the stroke prevention benefits materialize years later. This means Salcor could recoup their investment in preventive care for Renco employees when those employees later work at Garnet, giving Salcor financial incentive to encourage testing despite short tenure at Renco.
Renco and Garnet have approximately the same number of employees. This information about company size doesn't address the core timing issue in the argument. Whether the companies are the same size or different sizes, the problem remains that Renco employees leave before stroke prevention benefits materialize. Company size doesn't change the fundamental mismatch between when Salcor pays for treatment and when they would benefit from prevented strokes.
Renco employees are not, on average, significantly younger than Garnet employees. Age similarity between the employee groups doesn't resolve the timing problem. Regardless of age, the issue is that Renco employees leave within a few years while stroke prevention benefits appear several years later. Even if employees are the same age, this doesn't change the fact that Salcor pays for treatment now but won't benefit from prevented strokes later because those employees will have left Renco.