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? C. Garnet hires a significant number of former employees of Renco. 为什么是C？G公司的大部分雇员之前在C公司怎么weaken the argument了？？？
C. Garnet hires a significant number of former employees of Renco. 为什么是C？G公司的大部分雇员之前在C公司怎么weaken the argument了？？？ 作者: self346959851 时间: 2011-4-21 21:02
S公司给G和R两家公司提供健康保险，早期的胆固醇检查能防止中风，早期资料可以降低风险和花费。R的员工在R时间不长，所以S没什么兴趣做R的生意。问削弱？C选项说G雇佣了很多R的人，言外之意是反正G要求检查胆固醇，所以如果这些重复的人即便在R检查了也要重新检查，所以干脆也可以给R的人检查，反正他们将来会去G，这样就查两遍，赚两遍钱。作者: 傻熊有傻福 时间: 2011-4-21 21:13
额，还是不太懂，R不是不做吗？怎么做了两遍呢？作者: self346959851 时间: 2011-4-22 08:29
R和G两个公司，G的员工是必须要检的。R的员工后来去了G，所以他们必须会检。如果在他们去G之前，就是还在R的时候就检一次，等去了G还会再检，就检了两次。那么就削弱了原文lacks any financial incentive