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.
这个题曾经以填空题得形式出现过，答案是A 现在以普通的方式出现答案是C，很不解作者: clairesslc 时间: 2011-7-19 21:24
楼主 以填空的方式出现应该选Ａ
因为，填空解释的是 为什么Salcor没有足够的理由让R的员工早治疗，因为A. Early treatment of high cholesterol does not eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life.
早治疗不会减少以后中风的可能性，又因为题目说的Ｒ的员工都是短期的，也就是说这些员工离开公司以后，很有可能还是会得中风，他们还得自己支付
中风的医药费，所以Salcor
但是如果问削弱的话，应该选Ｃ 没错
题目说Salcor鼓励Ｇ的员工早治疗，却 lacks any financial incentive 去鼓励Ｒ的员工，但是Ｃ选项却说Ｇ的员工都是Ｒ以前的员工，所以应该是Salcor鼓励Ｒ的员工早治疗， lacks any financial incentive 去鼓励Ｇ的员工，因为Ｇ的员工来自Ｒ，而Ｒ已经在几年前为他们支付过保险了。 所以Ｃ削弱了两个方面。作者: tclzcja 时间: 2011-7-20 06:30
