Critical Reasoning

The average life expectancy for the United States population as a whole is 73.9 years, but children born in Hawaii will live an average of 77 years, and those born in Louisiana, 71.7 years. If a newlywed couple from Louisiana were to begin their family in Hawaii, therefore, their children would be expected to live longer than would be the case if the family remained in Louisiana.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most significantly strengthen the conclusion drawn in the passage?

(A) As population density increases in Hawaii, life expectancy figures for that state are likely to be revised downward.
(B) Environmental factors tending to favor longevity are abundant in Hawaii and less numerous in Louisiana.
(C) Twenty-five percent of all Louisianians who move to Hawaii live longer than 77 years.
(D) Over the last decade, average life expectancy has risen at a higher rate for Louisianians than for Hawaiians.
(E) Studies show that the average life expectancy for Hawaiians who move permanently to Louisiana is roughly equal to that of Hawaiians who remain in Hawaii.

Answer is B, as it talks about environmental factors exclusive to Hawaii
A is out of scope.
C and D gives us some statistics, which does not help
E infact weakens the argument.

i chose C bcos i thot in B environmental factors are out of scope of the argument. the statistics given in C someway sticks to the arg.

Even I agree with (B). Since the factors the lengthen longevity are more in Hawaii, the conclusion can be supported. However, (C) may actually weaken the argument. Only 25% from LA to Hawaii live longer than 77 years...low probability.

PAB2706 wrote:i chose C bcos i thot in B environmental factors are out of scope of the argument. the statistics given in C someway sticks to the arg.

If the question ask you what conclusion to draw from it, this will indeed be out of scope, but as something to support the argument it's not a concern.

A is irrelevant

B applies a factor unique to living in Hawaii--even if you were not born there.

C no effect

D weakens if any influence

E weakens

I am leaning more towards B, but I'm not sure about it.

I will Go with option B

The average life expectancy for the United States population as a whole is 73.9 years, but children born in Hawaii will live an average of 77 years, and those born in Louisiana, 71.7 years. If a newlywed couple from Louisiana were to begin their family in Hawaii, therefore, their children would be expected to live longer than would be the case if the family remained in Louisiana.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most significantly strengthen the conclusion drawn in the passage?

(A) As population density increases in Hawaii, life expectancy figures for that state are likely to be revised downward.
In the conclusion we are talking about a newly wed couple, not the overall population. Also, in the other way round, if the population density increases in Hawaii, average life expectancy goes down as the option suggests. So, it weakens the conclusion because than the children of the newly wed couple, who begin their family in Louisiana, will not be expected to live longer.

(B) Environmental factors tending to favor longevity are abundant in Hawaii and less numerous in Louisiana.
Knowing that the environmental factors that tend to favor longevity are abundant in Hawaii strengthens the conclusion. It even supports the evidence - children born in Hawaii will live an average of 77 years, and those born in Louisiana, 71.7 years - on which the conclusion is based.

(C) Twenty-five percent of all Louisianians who move to Hawaii live longer than 77 years.
That's okay if 25% lived longer than 77 years. But what about the remaining 75%. We are talking about the average age not the age of some individuals. What if the remaining Louisianians who moved to Hawaii lived for less than 77 years. That will weaken the conclusion.

(D) Over the last decade, average life expectancy has risen at a higher rate for Louisianians than for Hawaiians.
If that's the case, then moving to Hawaii does not seem to be a good plan. It weakens the conclusion.


(E) Studies show that the average life expectancy for Hawaiians who move permanently to Louisiana is roughly equal to that of Hawaiians who remain in Hawaii.
This weakens the conclusion. Even if the Hawaiians move to Louisiana there average life expectancy is the same as the one when they were in Hawaii. So, it means that Louisianans when move to Hawaii may not expect an increase in the average life expectancy of their children. It does not seem to be a relocation issue but a genetic factor.