Two tech firms, AlphaTech and BetaSystems, each pay MedCare to provide health insurance for their staff. Because early intervention for diabetes can prevent serious health complications that may arise years later, MedCare encourages AlphaTech employees to have their blood sugar levels checked and to seek early treatment for diabetes. BetaSystems employees typically stay with the company for only a short period, however. Therefore, MedCare lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to BetaSystems employees.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

BetaSystems employees are not, on average, significantly older than AlphaTech employees.

Early intervention for diabetes does not guarantee the prevention of complications later in life.

AlphaTech employs a considerable number of former BetaSystems employees.

BetaSystems and AlphaTech have roughly the same number of employees.

Individuals often seek early treatment for diabetes independently.

Correct

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Preview

Official Explanation

Official

The argument suggests that MedCare does not have a financial incentive to encourage BetaSystems employees to seek early treatment for diabetes because they do not stay long enough for MedCare to benefit from their health improvements. To weaken this argument, we need to show that there is a reason for BetaSystems employees to seek treatment regardless of MedCare's encouragement. Option (E)…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

JosephJan 9, 2025

Greatt

adelinaApr 21, 2024

got this wrong on my practice

ArtemFeb 14, 2025

thanks a lot

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can identify the option that most undermines an argument's conclusion.

Common trap

Choosing an irrelevant objection or one that attacks the premise rather than the reasoning.