Garnet and RenCo each provide health care for their employee

[dheeraj787]

Source: GMAT PREP

Q. Which of the following most logically completes the passage?
Garnet and RenCo each provide health care for their employees. Garnet pays for both testing of its employees' cholesterol levels and treatment of high cholesterol. This policy saves Garnet money, since high cholesterol left untreated for many years leads to conditions that require very expensive treatment. However, RenCo dose not have the same financial incentive to adopt such a policy, because ______.

A. early treatment of high cholesterol dose not entirely eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life
B. the mass media regularly feature stories encouraging people to maintain diets that are low in cholesterol
C. RenCo has significantly more employees than Garnet has
D. RenCo's employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet's employees
E. the average length of time an employee stays with RenCo is less than it is with Garnet


I chose A.
Original Answer is E.


Please explain why A is wrong and why E is correct ?

On A how I thought is: The argument is about saving money. Garnet takes care of cholesterol in early stages to save money in future by avoiding very expensive treatments. and if as per option A the stroke is still expected in future then what is the benefit of adopting such policy and that is what RenCo might have thought. This is why I chose A. Please explain me where my thought process went wrong.

Why I eliminated E: Let's say at Garnet the avg. stay time is 60 years. At RenCo the avg. stay time is 59.99 years. Now nobody knows at what time length the high cholesterol left untreated becomes a very expensive affair. It might be after en employee leaves after 60 years or 59.99 years or it might be before an employee leaves after 60 years or 59.99 years therefore this point does not help in making a decision on whether to adopt the policy or not.

Please explain. Thanks.

(It would be great if your could also explain in the end why option D is wrong)

Regards,
Dheeraj

[ramendra.awesome]

The argument states that the policy saves Garnet money, since high cholesterol left untreated for many years leads to conditions that require very expensive treatment. It does not say that this treatment of high cholesterol entirely eliminates the possibility of a stroke later in life.

Also the argument says that RenCo dose not have the same financial incentive to adopt such a policy. It does not question the effectiveness of such a policy. It is asking for a reason why such a policy which is profitable for Garnet, is not profitable form RenCo. In the argument it also says that high cholesterol left untreated for many years leads to conditions that require very expensive treatment. What if employees do not for that long in RenCo, then it will not be profitable for Renco to invest in such a policy.

[ramendra.awesome]

Option D is really a tempting option, if you ignore the word higher than Garnet's employee.

D says:

RenCo's employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet's employees.

Now even if RenCo' employees have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet's employees, but high enough to have stroke, then it will be profitable for RenCo to invest in policy which finances detecting cholesterol level at an early and curing the same.

Let me know, if it solves the dillema.

[dheeraj787]

The argument states that the policy saves Garnet money, since high cholesterol left untreated for many years leads to conditions that require very expensive treatment. It does not say that this treatment of high cholesterol entirely eliminates the possibility of a stroke later in life.

Also the argument says that RenCo dose not have the same financial incentive to adopt such a policy. It does not question the effectiveness of such a policy. It is asking for a reason why such a policy which is profitable for Garnet, is not profitable form RenCo. In the argument it also says that high cholesterol left untreated for many years leads to conditions that require very expensive treatment. What if employees do not for that long in RenCo, then it will not be profitable for Renco to invest in such a policy.

I am still not clear why E is correct.

Lets assume in 2001:
10 People join Garner. 25 People join RenCo.
10 people who joined Garner leaves Garner in 2010.
25 people who joined RenCo leaves Garner in 2009.
So till here we are in line with option E {the average length of time an employee stays with RenCo (8 years) is less than it is with Garnet (9 years)}

But what if all these 10 + 25 people got High level of cho'l in year 2005 and Garner treated its 10 as per policy and RenCo did not treat its 25 as no such policy.

and say in 2008, 2 people from Garner gets the stroke (because the early treatment does not completely eliminate) and all 25 people from RenCo reached to the stage of "very expensive treatment" then RenCO will have to bear that "Very Expensive Treatment Cost" as employees have not yet left RenCo. Now had RenCo had such policy it could have saved some money and gotten some financial incentive, no ?

Pls explain.. Thanks

[ramendra.awesome]

Ok, lets make it ultra-simple.

Argument says,"However, RenCo dose not have the same financial incentive to adopt such a policy, because ______."

Renco has inceptive but not same as Garnet, why because the average length of time an employee stays with RenCo is less than it is with Garnet. E option.

A says, early treatment of high cholesterol dose not entirely eliminate the possibility of a stroke later in life. Now it impacts both Garnet and RenCo equally. Option 'A' does not prove that it will impact more to RenCo than it will to Garnet, hence resulting in RenCo having different financial incentive than Garnet.

Please let me know if it helps.

[RonPurewal]

If you considered choice A for more than about two seconds before eliminating it, then you must have forgotten the goal of the problem.
Do not forget the goal of the problem!

* In this problem, we need a reason why the two companies have DIFFERENT financial incentives.

* The passage describes NO differences whatsoever between the circumstances at Garnet and those at Renco. No differences at all.

* Therefore, it's clear that the correct answer MUST describe some kind of DIFFERENCE in the situation involving employees between the two companies.

So, you can eliminate A and B without even reading all the words, because they don't give any differences between the companies. If there are no such differences, then any policy that makes sense for one company will automatically make sense for the other one, too.

[RonPurewal]

(It would be great if your could also explain in the end why option D is wrong)

Regards,
Dheeraj

D doesn't give a difference between the companies, either. (Unlike choices A and B, this one actually contains the names of the companies, so you actually have to read it.)

"Unlikely to be higher" actually gives us more reason believe that the two situations are similar, not different.

[RonPurewal]

I am still not clear why E is correct.

Lets assume in 2001:
10 People join Garner. 25 People join RenCo.
10 people who joined Garner leaves Garner in 2010.
25 people who joined RenCo leaves Garner in 2009.
So till here we are in line with option E {the average length of time an employee stays with RenCo (8 years) is less than it is with Garnet (9 years)}

But what if all these 10 + 25 people got High level of cho'l in year 2005 and Garner treated its 10 as per policy and RenCo did not treat its 25 as no such policy.

and say in 2008, 2 people from Garner gets the stroke (because the early treatment does not completely eliminate) and all 25 people from RenCo reached to the stage of "very expensive treatment" then RenCO will have to bear that "Very Expensive Treatment Cost" as employees have not yet left RenCo. Now had RenCo had such policy it could have saved some money and gotten some financial incentive, no ?

Pls explain.. Thanks

You should NEVER have to plug numbers into a CR problem.
CR is never going to depend on complex mathematical reasoning involving specific numerical values. After all, there's an entire other part of the exam -- the quant section -- that deals with that sort of thing.
The extent to which you'll have to consider mathematical/statistical relationships on CR is limited to three things:
1/ Basic inequalities (this thing is greater than that thing)
2/ the meaning behind the choice of statistics in a passage (e.g., the difference between "number of murders" and "number of murders per capita")
3/ general trends/relationships that can be perceived without reference to specific numbers.

This problem is an example of #3 here.
The problem says that high cholesterol leads to issues over a long period of time ("many years").
Therefore, the longer the employees are with the company, the greater the company's risk of being exposed to those issues (and the resultant expenses).
That this relationship exists is clear, and doesn't require "plugging in numbers" to see. That's enough to pick the correct answer.

Leave the calculations for the quant section.

[RonPurewal]

Also -- If you are relying on extreme examples to make your point, that means your point isn't really a point.

Your example (with "number plugging") is extreme in more than one way.

First, you've minimized the difference between the average durations of employment. If you make the durations 8 and 30 years rather than 8 and 9 years, you'll see what's going on.

Second, you're presenting a case in which the all of the employees hired in a given year -- at both companies -- develop the same medical condition, all at exactly the same time. Um...?

[dheeraj787]

Thank you everyone.

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

[calm.jing]

D doesn't give a difference between the companies, either. (Unlike choices A and B, this one actually contains the names of the companies, so you actually have to read it.)

"Unlikely to be higher" actually gives us more reason believe that the two situations are similar, not different.

Hi Ron,

Why does "unlikely to be higher" in D mean "similar" rather than "similar or likely to be lower"? In math part, "no more than" means "equal to or less than". Is it a different case here? Thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

I guess if you're reading these things in a strictly mathematical way, then, sure. Still, that's not an argument for choice D. (Even if the Renco population's cholesterol levels, on average, were lower, there could still be many individuals who would require the treatment. Since the treatment is "very expensive", the average is less meaningful.)

[RitikK630]

I guess if you're reading these things in a strictly mathematical way, then, sure. Still, that's not an argument for choice D. (Even if the Renco population's cholesterol levels, on average, were lower, there could still be many individuals who would require the treatment. Since the treatment is "very expensive", the average is less meaningful.)

Hi Ron,

By this logic even option E can be debated.
If the average length of time an employee stays with RenCo is less than it is with Garnet but not significantly less, then also it should consider adopting such a policy.
For instance if we say that the average length of time employee stays with Renco is 49 years while that of Garnet is 50 years. then it does not make much sense for Renco to not adopt such policy.

However, as per option D
if RenCo’s employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet’s employees i.e. Renco's employees seldom have high cholesterol levels then it does not make sense for Renco to adopt such a policy.

I am not debating on the correct choice here but wanted to know how were you able to eliminate D for sure. I find D to be a valid contender.

Any thoughts on this ??

[RichaChampion]

I guess if you're reading these things in a strictly mathematical way, then, sure. Still, that's not an argument for choice D. (Even if the Renco population's cholesterol levels, on average, were lower, there could still be many individuals who would require the treatment. Since the treatment is "very expensive", the average is less meaningful.)

Hi Ron,

By this logic even option E can be debated.
If the average length of time an employee stays with RenCo is less than it is with Garnet but not significantly less, then also it should consider adopting such a policy.
For instance if we say that the average length of time employee stays with Renco is 49 years while that of Garnet is 50 years. then it does not make much sense for Renco to not adopt such policy.

However, as per option D
if RenCo’s employees are unlikely to have higher cholesterol levels than Garnet’s employees i.e. Renco's employees seldom have high cholesterol levels then it does not make sense for Renco to adopt such a policy.

I am not debating on the correct choice here but wanted to know how were you able to eliminate D for sure. I find D to be a valid contender.

Any thoughts on this ??

Well if thats the case than why should I even bother to minimize the chances of cholesterol. Let the employee get lost from my company and get sick while they are in other company this will save tons of my dollars. Perfect!