Ilhomjon98 wrote:
Dear experts!
Could you please explain why E is correct while C i wrong?
in C, if there are a large number of young children died, then average life span would be much lower because they died early ,so average life span is low.
I would appreciate if you explain reasoning behind answer choices C and E!
Thank you very much beforehand!
Hello,
Ilhomjon98 and others who may stumble across this thread. I will give this question a full analysis in hopes of assisting the community. If we need to weaken the argument here, then we have to be careful to pinpoint exactly what that argument may be. But first, the passage:
shridhar786 wrote:
Anthropologists claim that the human life span has increased over the past three thousand years. However, these same anthropologists cannot produce any verifiable documentation of the life spans of humans who lived as recently as 2000 years ago. Therefore, it is perfectly possible that the average lifespan of humans of that era could have been sixty years or longer.
Sentence 1 starts with a
claim: humans have tended to live progressively longer
over the past three thousand years.
Sentence 2 provides a consideration against that claim. There is no
verifiable documentation on human longevity that dates back even 2000 years ago, let alone 3000.
Sentence 3 is the conclusion, which indicates that
the average lifespan of humans of that era could have been sixty years or longer.
If we want to weaken the conclusion, we need to find compelling information that would indicate that the average lifespan... was
not likely 60+ years.
shridhar786 wrote:
(A) A list of Biblical characters, such as Methusalah, who are reputed to have lived to a great age.
Reputation and
verifiable documentation on longevity are not the same. This is an easy answer choice to see off.
shridhar786 wrote:
(B) A three-thousand year old corpse which, according to an examination of the bones and teeth, died in its sixties or seventies.
The corpse died in its 60s or 70s? If this were an SC question, we could have a field day. All joking aside, an ancient human who had lived beyond 60 would stand as a testament only to the fact that humans were capable of living beyond 60 at that time. We cannot tell anything about
the average lifespan of humans by one corpse alone, so this evidence has no impact on the argument whatsoever.
shridhar786 wrote:
(C) An archeological excavation of an iron-age graveyard containing a large number of bodies of young children.
All that this reveals is that some young children were buried in a similar place, but whether this graveyard was indicative of graveyards in general, in terms of who was being interred, is unknown. Perhaps this particular graveyard was reserved for children only. In such a case, it would be presumptuous to assume that humans in general could not have lived beyond 60 years.
shridhar786 wrote:
(D) A study showing that the largest increase in the human lifespan within living memory took place within the twentieth century.
We are not interested in the twentieth century, only whether ancient humans, as I will refer to them, lived
sixty years or longer on average. This information does not shed light on the issue.
shridhar786 wrote:
(E) an examination of various ancient burial sites containing mummified remains of humans in their thirties and forties.
If many
ancient burial sites contained the remains of humans who had died between 30-40 years of age, then the likelihood that
the average lifespan of humans of that era could have been sixty years or longer decreases. It is not as though such sexagenarians could not be buried somewhere else, but the more burial sites of that period that produce corpses of those who had died younger, the stronger the case becomes against the conclusion of the passage. With no viable alternative, this must be our answer.
I hope that helps. If anyone has further inquiries, I would be happy to discuss this one.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.