prep-101 各位帮忙看一下~~

狂威雪

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

lonski

1. R公司员工平均只待几年时间就跳槽。如果跳槽到非G公司，那么跟Salcor半毛钱关系没有，因为high-C的费用就是由别的保险公司承担了。

2. 可是R公司这拨跳槽的人都跳到G公司，G公司的保险费是由Salcor承担的。相当于R公司员工是G公司的储备人才，反正不管是R员工还是G员工都烂到Salcor一个锅里面了，都得花Salcor的钱，那还不如给R公司的人提前做early C test。因此有financial incentives. 选C。

---原文分析：
Renco employees generallyremain with Renco only for a few years, however.  Therefore, Salcor lacks any financialincentive to provide similar encouragement to Renco employees.

为什么要加上"however"？作者的理由是R公司员工待的不长，过几年就跳槽，high-C不high-C的医疗费用不用Salcor承担了，因此推导出最后的结论。而是如果C选项正确：R的员工都跳到G了，而G又是Salcor保险的，那这个烂摊子还不得砸自己手里？还不如在R也进行early treatment.

hellocrystal

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

-- by 会员 狂威雪 (2011/5/27 23:46:57)

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。

-- by 会员 夏天amy (2011/5/28 1:06:41)

我认为你那个explain的解释的非常到位，但是我不同意你那个关于削弱的解释啊。。
文章中说G公司和R公司，each pay S 公司来为他们的员工提供健康保险。。。S鼓励G公司的员工去做检查，然后早发现早治疗。。 这就表明了做检查预防中风的发生可以给S公司省钱啊。。。
然后文章中说S缺少经济方面的动机来建议R也提供同样的encouragement。问削弱 。我们应该找的是：证明S其实有 financial incentive。
而不是从G和R两个公司的经济方面来考虑。我觉得你解释的角度偏了。。
这其实是个gap题：即使R员工离开了R公司，S还是会和这些人脱不了干系，因为G雇佣大部分原R公司的员工。如果在不鼓励的情况下，很有可能的情况是R员工中来到G的大部分人患有C病。而因为这些人没有及早的 treatment，又知道“early treatment of high cholesterol can prevent strokes that would otherwise occur several years later”，所以S公司可能要支付巨额的保险金。基于这点的考虑， S公司要同样的鼓励R员工。（这个点就是financial incentive了~）

狂威雪

恩也，明白了，结论是缺少financial incentive.所以削弱就是它有financial incentive.即可以节约医药费。这位CDer，你的逻辑怎么这么好呀？哈哈，赐教一下呀哈

夏天amy

恩 对 填空题一般是解释原因也可以是加强

但是那个削弱，我觉得不是他因 而是削弱题目中的没有financial incentive

原文说因为R的员工都留不长，S就没有动机提建议。C选项是说有很多R的员工会被G hire，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

狂威雪

而填空题与这道题的本质区别是 结论不一样，填空题 提供足够的理由，属于加强。加强G没有提供早期的医疗救治。而这道题是削弱。这样理解可以吗？

狂威雪

谢谢呀~~我还是有点不明白此题的因果关系推理，我理解的是因为G公司的员工在公司呆不了几年，给G创不了多少价值（这是它的financial incentive），所以S鼓励G员工没必要。
削弱是不是因为financial incentive,而是因为G的员工来自于R。 属于找到其他的原因来削弱结论，这样理解可以吗？

夏天amy

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

-- by 会员 狂威雪 (2011/5/27 23:46:57)

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。