一道小小逻辑，扣请版主出山！！！

Two companies, G and T, 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 G employees to have their cholesterol levels tested and to obtain early treatment for high cholesterol. R employees generally remain with R only for a few years, however. Therefore, Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to R empoyees.

weaken?

A. Early treatment of high cholesterol does not eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life

B. People ofter obtain early treatment for high cholesterol on their own.

C. G hires a significant number of former employees of R

D. R and G have appoximately the same number of employees.

E. R employees are not, on average, significantly younger than G employees

答案是C

这个题的逻辑简图是啥啊~怎么会有这么个答案！

扣请版主出山！

小试一下,没搞好别怪我哦....

Two companies, G and R, 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 G employees to have their cholesterol levels tested and to obtain early treatment for high cholesterol.

 R employees generally remain with R only for a few years,---原因

however. Therefore, Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to R empoyees.--结果

分析:   Because  早治疗可以预防 , 所以鼓励G测试cholesterol并早治疗  ,

但R的雇员在R工作时间只有几年 -----A  注意:这里并不是说R的前员工都跑了,现有员工都是这几年招的       

Therefore   不鼓励R测试治疗--B---------与鼓励测试治疗相对,R公司和G公司的结果相反

                      结构为    A→B        

削弱方法:同因异果        即A→反B        削弱的理由就是同因

weaken?

A. Early treatment of high cholesterol does not eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life--->反对前提,支持结论

B. People ofter obtain early treatment for high cholesterol on their own.----->样本大小? How many people? These people are not representative for the total population that the generlization is talking about.

C. G hires a significant number of former employees of R  ----> 说明G和R的员工工龄相同甚至更短,但G被鼓励测试治疗,A→反B

D. R and G have appoximately the same number of employees.------>无关比较,和NUMBER木有关系

E. R employees are not, on average, significantly younger than G employees------->无关比较,和AGE木有关系

没看懂2楼。。汗。。。

我也来凑热闹说两句，C是唯一可以打擦边球的答案。

多数员工在R就职几年，为什么？因为被G挖走了。如果员工身体不好，G就不挖了。那么R就要承担医疗费。

有些明白了，C就是说G和R的员工工龄相同，但G却提供医疗，说明这么长时间的工龄就有risk了，所以R的员工也就有risk了

感谢~~~

我同意楼上仁兄：

s为G和R公司投保（保胆固醇，会在查出来的几年后复发），S鼓励G员工做测试且治疗。而R的员工只在公司带几年（当胆固醇发病时，员工已近走了，所以公司不愿做测试）

结论：Ｓ公司缺乏经济的动机去鼓励Ｒ做测试，　evidence：Ｒ的员工在公司呆的时间短　

weakened：因为Ｇ的员工大部分是Ｒ的，所以Ｒ员工发病的风险被Ｇ承担了（既是，如果Ｓ不给Ｒ的员工做测试的话，S以后就要承担员工发病的风险），所以不缺乏financial impetus

我同意楼上仁兄：

s为G和R公司投保（保胆固醇，会在查出来的几年后复发），S鼓励G员工做测试且治疗。而R的员工只在公司带几年（当胆固醇发病时，员工已近走了，所以公司不愿做测试）

结论：Ｓ公司缺乏经济的动机去鼓励Ｒ做测试，　evidence：Ｒ的员工在公司呆的时间短　

weakened：因为Ｇ的员工大部分是Ｒ的，所以Ｒ员工发病的风险被Ｇ承担了（既是，如果Ｓ不给Ｒ的员工做测试的话，S以后就要承担员工发病的风险），所以不缺乏financial impetus

简化些。C is right. G 招长工，R 招短工，R 人去了G，对S是一样的风险，照样要保，故不是保险公司的事。