Question 13

Explanation

Let's dissect the logic of each statement to see how it aligns with Andi's situation.

Analysis of Statement A

This statement establishes a tenure requirement (more than 5 years) for entitlement to insurance. Its focus is on "who has the right to own insurance." In Andi's case, we are not given information about how long he has worked. Therefore, Andi's condition cannot be used to directly test the validity of statement A.

Analysis of Statement B

This statement establishes a medical condition (severe illness or injury) as the trigger for activation of the insurance. The logic is:

If an employee suffers a severe injury $\rightarrow$ Insurance is activated.

Analysis of Andi's Condition

The facts show that Andi is experiencing a severe injury (premise fulfilled) and is able to activate his health insurance (conclusion occurred).

Andi's condition serves as empirical evidence that aligns perfectly with the cause-and-effect mechanism described in Statement B. Since the actual event (Andi gets injured, then insurance activates) matches the statement's prediction, this fact supports the validity of argument B.

Thus, Andi's condition stands as evidence that strengthens statement B.