We are told that the lucky people of Wistar live considerably longer, on average, than people in other parts of Bellaria. The author concludes that the long lives of the Wistarians can be explained by the fact that their mountainous environment "essentially imposes a physically active lifestyle on people." To review the author's argument:
- A physically active lifestyle has been shown to help increase longevity (i.e. to help people live longer).
- The average age at death of people in Wistar is considerably higher than the average age at death of the people living elsewhere in the country. In other words, Wistarians seem to live longer than other Bellarians.
- Wistar is the only mountainous part of Bellaria, and the mountainous terrain makes even such basic activities as walking relatively strenuous.
- Because of the mountainous terrain, Wistarians are essentially forced to live physically active lifestyles (even something as basic as walking around is a physically demanding activity in Wistar). Since a physically active lifestyle has been shown to help increase longevity, it follows that the mountainous terrain would naturally increase longevity among the Wistarians.
But can we safely conclude that the mountainous terrain is what explains the long lives of the Wistarians? We need to find the answer choice that most seriously weakens the author's argument:
Quote:
(A) In Bellaria all medical expenses are paid by the government, so that personal income does not affect the quality of health care a person receives.
What if personal income is higher in Wistar and, as a result, the people of Wistar have better healthcare? That could explain the long lives of the Wistarians and thus weaken the argument. However, choice (A) tell us that personal income does NOT affect the quality of health care. Choice (A) gives us no reason to suspect that Wistar has better healthcare, so (A) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(B) People living in Wistar do not have a significantly better diet than people living in other parts of Bellaria.
If people in Wistar HAD a significantly better diet than people living in other parts of Bellaria, then that might explain why the Wistarians live longer. However, choice (B) tells us that this is not the case and thus
removes a possibility that would weaken the argument. Choice (B) does not weaken the argument and can be eliminated.
Quote:
(C) Many people who live in the Wistar region have moved there in middle age or upon retirement.
The author's idea is that Wistarians enjoy longer lives because they are essentially forced to lead active lifestyles. But what if many of the people living in Wistar didn't move there until middle age or upon retirement? In that case, those people, upon moving to Wistar, would be no different (physically) than the people living elsewhere in the country. Sure, now that they live in Wistar, they are essentially forced to lead a more active lifestyle, but would that explain the
considerable difference in the average age of death? The author's argument and conclusion
could still be true, but choice (C) definitely
weakens the argument by suggesting that many Wistar residents have not lived there long enough to be significantly affected by their environment. Hang on to this one.
Quote:
(D) The many opportunities for hiking, skiing, and other outdoor activities that Wistar's mountains offer make it a favorite destination for vacationing Bellarians.
The argument and conclusion pertain to the people who LIVE in Wistar. We are not concerned with tourists or vacationers, so (D) can be eliminated.
Quote:
(E) Per capita spending on recreational activities is no higher in Wistar than it is in other regions of Bellaria.
If recreational activities were significantly CHEAPER in Wistar, that might explain why the Wistarians are more active and why they live longer. But choice (E) tells us that this is not the case. The author's point is that just LIVING in Wistar is enough to affect longevity. Choice (E) does not impact this argument and even eliminates a scenario that would weaken the argument. Thus, (E) can be eliminated.
Choice (C) is the best answer.
I am not able to agree with your option A explanation.
My theory is since the government is paying for health expenses that personal income does not affect the quality of healthcare, this means people are able to take care of themselves more as they don't have burdens or constraints to improve the quality of life. Let's say if the government is NOT paying for health expenses then maybe some people won't be able to afford healthcare and hence it will weaken the argument.