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.
CR from OG 10th
This topic has expert replies
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:29 pm
- Thanked: 2 times
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]
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: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:28 am
- Thanked: 20 times
- Followed by:1 members
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 ???
i know its not the correct answer but whats the reason for it to be wrong ???
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:29 pm
- Thanked: 2 times
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.
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.
- VikingWarrior
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 89
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:55 am
- Thanked: 6 times
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.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.
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: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
- Thanked: 173 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:710
@Venky that was a convulted reasoning..It really took me minutes to grasp ur wordings..Anyways Gud work bro!!VikingWarrior wrote: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.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.
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
@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!!...
: