It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 11:52

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# OG Critical Reasoning #1 - I disagree?

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 48

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 5

Schools: HEC
OG Critical Reasoning #1 - I disagree? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jan 2011, 13:03
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

83% (01:07) correct 17% (01:44) wrong based on 112 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Hey,

I'm currently working on the OG for my GMAT prep and I found a question which I answered incorrect and for which I disagree on the official explanation.

The question is the following:

"'Life expectancy' is the average age at death of the entire live-born population. In the middle of the nineteenth century, life expectancy in North America was 40 years, whereas now it is nearly 80 years. Thus, in those days, people must have been considered old at an age that we consider the prime of life."

Which of the following, if true, undermines the argument above?

A. In the middle of the nineteenth century, the population of North America was significantly smaller than it is today.
B. Most of the gains in life expectancy in the last 150 years have come from reductions in the number of infants who die in their first year of life.
C. Many of the people who live to an advanced age today do so only because of medical technology that was unknown in the nineteenth century.
D. The proportion of people who die in their seventies is significantly smaller today than is the proportion of people who die in their eighties.
E. More people in the middle of the nineteenth century engaged regularly in vigorous physical activity than do so today.

How I answered it:
Tough question, because I could not clearly determine the main conclusion/main argument. My first thought had been the following: "People nowadays think that 40 years must be the prime of life, while it actually has been considered old in former times." Answer A would have nothing to do with this, since this argument would not consider population sizes. Answer B would not have much to do with it either because it would disagree with the argument instead of supporting (undermining) it. Answer C does not consider the argument: It just says that people nowadays get older and why. Answer D was my choice (after some thought), because it states that people nowadays on average really are much older (such that the age of 40 would be considered the prime of life). Answer E would not have much to do with the question (it only hints but there is no clear indication of a causal reference between age and action).

How OG answered it:
"What we think of as the prime of life must have been considered old in that era." What point weakens this argument? B would be correct - Greatly reducing first-year infant mortality will have a large impact on the average life expectancy of the population as a whole. That, rather than grown adults living twice as long, is enough to account for a large portion of the doubling in average life expectancy. Answer D.: This point supports the argument.

So I am a little confused now: The answer in my point of view does not fit the question, the question should rather have been "Which, if true, weakens the argument above?" to fit the explanation.

Can anyone explain it to me in his/her own words?
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

MGMAT 1 - 580 - Q36 V33
MGMAT 2 - 650 - Q44 V35
GMAT 1 - 690 - Q48 V38
MGMAT 3 - 680 - Q47 V36
MGMAT 4 - 690 - Q44 V39
GMAT 2 - 700 - Q48 V37

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 5

VP
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 1468

Kudos [?]: 299 [1], given: 31

Re: OG Critical Reasoning #1 - I disagree? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jan 2011, 13:25
1
KUDOS
Undermine is a weaken question

Kudos [?]: 299 [1], given: 31

Intern
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 48

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 5

Schools: HEC
Re: OG Critical Reasoning #1 - I disagree? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Jan 2011, 15:24
lagomez wrote:
Undermine is a weaken question

Ah okay, makes total sense to me. I guess my German understanding distracted me at first...
_________________

MGMAT 1 - 580 - Q36 V33
MGMAT 2 - 650 - Q44 V35
GMAT 1 - 690 - Q48 V38
MGMAT 3 - 680 - Q47 V36
MGMAT 4 - 690 - Q44 V39
GMAT 2 - 700 - Q48 V37

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 5

Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2010
Posts: 179

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 20

Re: OG Critical Reasoning #1 - I disagree? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2011, 21:05
B

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 20

Intern
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 7

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 16

Re: OG Critical Reasoning #1 - I disagree? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2013, 10:41
Undermine is a weaken question.

Totally agree. That's a note everyone should make to themselves when answering an "Which of the following, if true, undermines the argument above?" Better known as- Which answer weakens the argument. Only choice B is fits.

Gracias para los kudos

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 16

Re: OG Critical Reasoning #1 - I disagree?   [#permalink] 04 Oct 2013, 10:41
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# OG Critical Reasoning #1 - I disagree?

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.