请教一道逻辑题~~~PREP上的

Rainbeauty

101.    (31700-!-item-!-188;#058&006145)    (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.
我的看法：既然weaken  the argument, 那么根据line of reasoning: Renco employees generally remain with Renco only for a few years,所以 Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to Renco employees. 应该找出其他的理由导致Salcor lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to Renco employees而不是找削弱financial incentive说明S有financial incentive。这题答案C
蛋似，很不明白，C怎么就能使别的reasons解释S的lack of incentive呢？？？
谢谢赐教

Rainbeauty

自己顶个~~~

sdcar2010

Well, because if G hires many R's former employees, then S has to take care of R's former employees eventually. So S has a financial incentive to diagonose future risks in R's employees now before it becomes too late when R's employees jumped to G.

colasama

是结论错了，你要找结论错的原因。
而不是“结论是对的，只是找错了理由”




题目结论只有一个：Salcor lacks any financial incentive。不管作者支持的理由是什么，你要做的只是削弱结论就可以了。




所以你要找的东西是，证明S其实有 financial incentive。


而不是找什么其他理由证明S没有financial incentive。