Two tech firms, Azure and Nimbus, each pay HealthCorp to provide health insurance for their staff. Because early intervention for high blood pressure can prevent heart attacks that might occur years later, HealthCorp encourages Azure employees to have their blood pressure checked and to seek early treatment for high blood pressure. Nimbus employees typically stay with Nimbus for only a short period, however. Therefore, HealthCorp has no financial motivation to provide similar encouragement to Nimbus employees.

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

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

(A) Early intervention for high blood pressure does not guarantee that a heart attack will not occur later in life.

(B) Many individuals seek early treatment for high blood pressure independently.

Correct

(D) Azure and Nimbus have roughly the same number of employees.

(E) Nimbus employees are not, on average, significantly older than Azure employees.

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 HealthCorp does not encourage Nimbus employees to seek early treatment for high blood pressure because they do not stay long enough to provide a financial incentive. To weaken this argument, we need to show that Nimbus employees might still seek treatment despite the lack of encouragement from HealthCorp. Option (B) states that many individuals seek early…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

vanshitaJan 14, 2025

thanksss

AdityaFeb 18, 2025

Amazing

LJan 8, 2024

can you explain more?

IanMay 8, 2024

Great

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.