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

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

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

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

Individuals frequently seek early treatment for high blood pressure independently.

Correct

Sapphire employs a considerable number of former Onyx staff.

Sapphire and Onyx have roughly the same number of employees.

Onyx employees are not, on average, significantly older than Sapphire 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 MedCare does not have a financial incentive to encourage Onyx employees to seek early treatment for high blood pressure because they do not stay long enough for MedCare to benefit from the reduced risk of heart attacks. To weaken this argument, we need to show that Onyx employees might still seek treatment independently, which would mean that…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

ArhanMay 4, 2025

Great question!

NeilMar 31, 2025

Good question

YashMay 2, 2024

Great!

MacroMar 17, 2024

Thank you very much!

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.