Two tech firms, BlueTech and RedCorp, each pay MediCare to provide health insurance for their staff. Because early intervention for high blood pressure can prevent heart attacks that might occur several years later, MediCare encourages BlueTech employees to have their blood pressure checked and to seek early treatment for high blood pressure. RedCorp employees typically stay with RedCorp for only a short period, however. Therefore, MediCare lacks any financial incentive to provide similar encouragement to RedCorp employees.

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

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

RedCorp employees are not, on average, significantly older than BlueTech employees.

Early intervention for high blood pressure does not guarantee the prevention of a heart attack later in life.

BlueTech employs a considerable number of former RedCorp staff.

RedCorp and BlueTech have roughly the same number of employees.

Individuals frequently seek early treatment for high blood pressure 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 states that MediCare does not have a financial incentive to encourage RedCorp employees to seek early treatment for high blood pressure because they typically do not stay long enough for the benefits to be realized. To weaken this argument, we need to show that there is a reason for MediCare to encourage RedCorp employees. Option…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

RosanneApr 12, 2025

thanks a lot

JeremiAug 31, 2024

Thank for sharing!!!

JakeApr 26, 2024

thanks for the answer

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.