Aggressive fertility treatments are not responsible for the rise in th

I will go with option E. this is a perfect example of "Correlation causation" fallacy.

Let me try this
The argument is based on the fact that age factor of women ( over 35) is responsible for higher percentage of twins.
Lets state this as cause A.
It refutes the fact that fertility treatment is responsible for this trend.
Lets state this as cause B.

According to the argument cause A -> result
but what if age of women is forcing them to take the fertility treatment i.e cause B -> cause A -> higher percentage of twins.

Answer choice analysis:

A. many women over 35 who give birth to twins are not first-time mothers - irrelevant , even if the mothers are not first time mothers then also the conclusion remains
B. women over 35 are not the only women who give birth to twins - does not help explain why women over 35 are giving more births to twins.
C.the correlation between fertility treatments and the increased incidence of multiple births may be a coincidence - again irrelevant
D. on average, women over 35 are no more likely to conceive identical twins than other women are - against the premise
E. women over 35 are more likely to resort to the sorts of fertility treatments that tend to yield twin births - correct for the reasons stated above.

oh this one was easy
E is the answer.
if women over 35 mostly use fertility treatments, and as a result give birth to twins, then most likely fertility treatments is the cause for getting twins

The conclusion of the stimulus is highlighted above...

We are told X is not responsible for Y and states that Y occurs due to Z
X= fertility treatments ; Y = incidence of twin births ; Z = women over 35 are more likely to conceive twins


Here the best thing to point out the flaw will be showing that Z is worked upon by X to reach the conclusion Y ; (E) does exactly that....

the question here is a weaken question. Whenever ones see "flaw" in the question, check the options first. If there are any words from the passage repeated, then the question is probably a weaken question.
D is wrong because of "identical twins"

E is the answer because it can so happen that women over the age of 35 are seeking treatment for fertility resulting in birth of twins .

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

E

Reading the question stem first (always a fine idea) for question 19 warns you to be on the alert for something the author has overlooked. The author argues against the notion that fertility treatments are responsible for the increased incidence of twins by presenting an alternative explanation-that the increase has occurred because more women are having children later in life, and these older women are statistically more likely to bear twins. This sounds plausible, but remember the key questions in GMAT causal arguments: Is the causality as simple as the author believes? Could another cause have been at work? If women over 35 are much more likely to use fertility treatments that often result in twin births, then it's possible that the twin births among older women are in fact due to fertility treatments. The problem (E) points out is not that the "alternative explanation" is illogical or impossible, but that it might be dependent on the very explanation it's supposed to replace.

(A) and (D) introduce irrelevant considerations. The author's argument is that fertility drugs aren't responsible for the increase in twins. It doesn't matter that, as (A) says, many of these older women aren't first time mothers. Nor does it matter that, as (D) says, these older women are no more likely to produce identical twins. As for (B), the author's point was simply that women over 35 are more likely to have twins than are younger women; her argument doesn't require that only women over 35 bear twins. (C) is wrong: since the author argues that the drugs are not responsible for the increased incidence of twins, she must believe, rather than overlook, the idea that any correlation between drugs and the increase of twin births is coincidental.

Why is option C wrong? Clearly, option C states that the correlation is a coincidence. How to eliminate on solid grounds.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.