prep1--101

msufcufou

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.

C. Garnet hires a significant number of former employees of Renco.

E. Renco employees are not, on average, significantly younger than Garnet employees.

答案：C

why not E?

tania_zhang

E 如果 R的员工都很年轻，他们又只在R服役一两年，那么他们得病的可能性更低。那么S就完全没必因为害怕它们发病以后，要赔很多钱，而鼓励他们做检查了。

So A strengthen the argument

C  那些员工在 Renco 时如果不做胆固醇的检验，进到 Garnet 时，可能就病发中风，Salcor 就要花很多钱去治疗这些员工。所以如果在 Renco 时就已经做检验，那很可能预防中风，那就可以省钱。

sunniers

但是E中说的是Renco employees are not, on average, significantly younger than Garnet employees，即R中的员工可能会比G中的员工年龄大或一样大，那么就有更高的发病率，这样不正好削弱了原文么？
请解答！

lenghongmin

文章没有提过younger不younger，楼主怎么会认为是干扰项呢？

tania_zhang

看来LZ还是没有理解我的意思

原文只说两家公司G和R给他们的员工保险，因为早期的对于C的治疗可以S的发病，然而保险公司只要求G公司的员工去测C，并且得到早期的治

疗对于high-c.但是R的员工只在Ｒ呆很少的时间。因此Ｓ公司是因为缺少financial incentive去给于R公司员工相似的encourage.

原文从来没有说过 employee old 所以得病率高，只说呆在厂里的时间和得病率的关系。

一定是LZ自己加了自己的想法，呆的时间长就是old,时间短就是younger.所以才会无关的认为相关的！

请仔细再看看。

msufcufou

这下懂了，很清晰，谢谢！