|
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 900
- 经验
- 900 点
- 威望
- 89 点
- 金钱
- 89 ￥
- 魅力
- 89
|
PrepCR101
101. (GWD 3-Q38/prep 2-6 different type)
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?
A. Early treatment of high cholesterol does not eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life.
B. People often obtain early treatment for high cholesterol on their own.
C. Garnet hires a significant number of former employees of Renco.
D. Renco and Garnet have approximately the same number of employees.
E. Renco employees are not, on average, significantly younger than Garnet employees.
答案是C
我的理解：
文章说：因为尽早对高胆固醇进行治疗能够防止一些年后中风的发生，S保险公司鼓励G公司雇员检查胆固醇水平并及早治疗高胆固醇。R公司雇员通常只在公司呆几年，所以S公司缺少经济动机去鼓励R公司员工进行胆固醇水平检查和高胆固醇治疗。
A：尽早治疗高胆固醇并不会减少今后中风的可能性。【如果治疗不会减少中风可能性，S公司就更加没有动机了，我觉得是加强】
B：人们常常自己去尽早治疗高胆固醇。【文章说雇员，这里说人们，讨论范围扩大；人们自己治不治和S公司的决策没有关系】
C：G公司雇佣了非常多的R公司以前的雇员。【我不理解：G公司雇佣了非常多R公司以前的雇员，和S公司对R公司的什么动机有关吗？】
D：R和G两公司的雇员人数差不多一样。【雇员人数，无关内容】
E：平均上来说，R公司的雇员并不比G公司雇员年轻很多。【我选这个选项的，因为排除到后来就剩它了=.=!】
求教高手：C选项如何解释？我的理解和排除理由是否有问题？快二战了，遇到题目百思不得其解，若能解答，不胜感激！ |
|
