Aggressive fertility treatments are not responsible for the rise in

IMO:E
E. women over 35 are more likely to resort to the sorts of fertility treatments that tend to yield twin births.

Pre thinking:
It might be the case, the women over 35 need more fertility treatment as a result they are more likely to conceive twins.­

IMO E

Only option goes with flaw part.

E. women over 35 are more likely to resort to the sorts of fertility treatments that tend to yield twin births

Option E

Conclusion: Over 35 is the reason of twin birth not fertility treatments.
What is the flaw?

A. many women over 35 who give birth to twins are not first-time mothers -- Ok, so.. this is not a flaw
B. women over 35 are not the only women who give birth to twins --- passage says >35 are higher %..so this is just a restatement
C. the correlation between fertility treatments and the increased incidence of multiple births may be a coincidence --- Not a flaw
D. on average, women over 35 are no more likely to conceive identical twins than other women are --- not a flaw this is just a statement

­

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.­

@experts, first of all please simplify what "The argument above is flawed in that it ignores the possibility that" means and how option E is the correct answer.

Thank You

BDM11

This is one variation of phrasing we see in the "Describe the Flaw" question type. Basically, it's asking "What's a problem the author has overlooked?" That translates to a weakener. We're looking for some new info that would make the argument seem less likely to be correct. E has been addressed pretty thoroughly above, but the basic idea is that the author missed a possible connection. Sure, women > 35 have more multiple births, but maybe that's precisely because they get aggressive fertility treatments. So those treatments, not age, may be the underlying cause of all the cases of twins out there.

If there's anything I can clarify about the question stem or choice E, please let me know.

Thank you DmitryFarber. Thanks for the support!

Your explanation was incredibly helpful. I Appreciate it.