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. 答案(C) G和R公司都有在S公司帮员工保了保险。 而因为早期治疗胆固醇可以预防S的发病， 所以保险公司有鼓励G公司的员工去检测胆固醇，并且得到早期的治疗， 但是R公司的只是短期员工，因此Ｓ保险公司缺少financial incentive去给於R公司 员工类似的encourage. 我有二个问题~ 1.原文中说R员工是短期所以就没有诱因去鼓励他们去做健检，是因为他们很容易就离职 ，流动率大，所以没必要做健检的意思吗？ 2答案(C)，为什麽R的短期员工到了G公司就可以削弱？答案和题干中间的逻辑连结是如何 啊？ 新题目~都找不到相关讨论 >"< 谢谢回答罗! --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 60.251.224.183