• 7 CATs FREE!
If you earn 100 Forum Points

Engage in the Beat The GMAT forums to earn
100 points for \$49 worth of Veritas practice GMATs FREE

VERITAS PRACTICE GMAT EXAMS
Earn 10 Points Per Post
Earn 10 Points Per Thanks
Earn 10 Points Per Upvote

## CR from OG 10th

##### This topic has expert replies
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 12
Joined: 01 May 2008

### CR from OG 10th

by croman » Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:24 pm
It is one of the question I made wrong,if somene explains me the answer i can appreciate..thanks

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 Louisianans who move to Hawaii live longer than 77 years.
D. Over the last decade, average life expectancy has risen at a higher rate for Louisianans 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.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 12
Joined: 01 May 2008
by croman » Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:25 pm

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 19
Joined: 29 Apr 2008
Thanked: 2 times
by envyramana » Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:08 am
A. As population density increases in Hawaii, life expectancy figures for that state are likely to be revised
downward.
This weakens the statement
B. Environmental factors tending to favor longevity are abundant in Hawaii and less numerous in Louisiana.
If these factors support obviously life expectancy is increased<
C. Twenty-five percent of all Louisianans who move to Hawaii live longer than 77 years.
Twenty five percent is irrelevant when we r talking about 100%
D. Over the last decade, average life expectancy has risen at a higher rate for Louisianans than for Hawaiians.
Irrelevant
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.
Irrelevant[/quote]

Legendary Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:1 members
by bhumika.k.shah » Mon Jan 25, 2010 10:49 am
sowree for opening a more than 2 years old post .. but whats wrong with E
i know its not the correct answer but whats the reason for it to be wrong ???

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 19
Joined: 29 Apr 2008
Thanked: 2 times
by envyramana » Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:35 am
The question is ''Which of the following statements, if true, would most significantly strengthen the conclusion drawn in the
passage?

Conslusion is 'their children would be expected to live longer than would be the case if the family remained in Louisiana.

Option E no where strengthens the pasage but talks another scenario.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 89
Joined: 23 Jan 2010
Thanked: 6 times
by VikingWarrior » Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:41 am
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.
What does this statement imply? it means that Hawaiians are probably genetically better endowed for longer longevity which weakens the argument that environmental factors in Hawaii are responsible for higher longevity of Hawaiians.
If genetic, instead of environmental factors, cause higher life expectancy rates in Hawaii then the children of the Louisiana couple would not have a higher longevity in Hawaii.
Hope you understand

Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710
by gmatmachoman » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:48 am
VikingWarrior wrote:
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.
What does this statement imply? it means that Hawaiians are probably genetically better endowed for longer longevity which weakens the argument that environmental factors in Hawaii are responsible for higher longevity of Hawaiians.
If genetic, instead of environmental factors, cause higher life expectancy rates in Hawaii then the children of the Louisiana couple would not have a higher longevity in Hawaii.
Hope you understand
@Venky that was a convulted reasoning..It really took me minutes to grasp ur wordings..Anyways Gud work bro!!

@bhumika

In simple we can say , Boss if some one moves from Hawai to Lousiana he will die soon rather if he had stayed back in Hawai itself becox the environmental factors in Louisana is socrappy & you cant live longer more in louisana and plz come back to Hawai itself if u want to see this world for more time!!...

:

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 303
Joined: 22 Aug 2015
by joseph32 » Sun May 15, 2016 10:46 pm
Answer E seems to be logical one out of other answer choices

• Page 1 of 1