Question

Companies that offer ''employer sponsored insurance'' (ESI) pay a portion of employees’
health care costs. In the manufacturing sector last year, companies that offered ESI had
worker absentee rates $22\%$lower, on average, than those at companies that did not offer ESI.

If, on the basis of the evidence above, it is argued that ESI decreases worker absenteeism, which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken that argument?

• A. Results similar to those cited for the manufacturing sector have been found in other sectors of the economy where ESI is offered.
• B. At companies that offer ESI, employees have access to preventative health care such as regular check-ups, routine laboratory tests, and nutrition counselling.
• C. Because initiating an ESI plan requires a lot of paperwork for the company, employees, and the insurance provider, doing so is complex and time-consuming.
• D. Many firms in the manufacturing sector have improved workplace safety and decreased the occurrence of on-the-job injuries in the last five years, and most of these companies
  introduced ESI at the same time.
• E. In manufacturing firms where ESI is offered, the average productivity is $2\%$ higher than it is in those firms where workers are not covered by an ESI plan.

Answer 1

The correct option is D Many firms in the manufacturing sector have improved workplace safety and decreased the occurrence of on-the-job injuries in the last five years, and most of these companies
introduced ESI at the same time.

D is a strong contender and correct answer as it mentions that improved workplace safety and decreased on-the job injuries in the last five years were introduced with ESI at the same time. Improved workplace safety and decreased on-the job injuries are adequate grounds for reducing absentism. It is possible that improved workplace safety decreases worker absenteeism. Hence correct answer.