Researchers have concluded from a survey of people aged 65 that emotio

(A) some people who attended college as young adults are likely as a result to be emotionally better off at age 65 - irrelevant.

(B) the emotional well-being of people aged 65 depends on the emotional well-being of their siblings - irrelevant.

(C) it is closeness to siblings rather than just having siblings that is more relevant to people’s emotional well-being at age 65 - correct.

(D) people who are emotionally well off at college age are more likely to be emotionally well off at age 65 as well - we cannot really assume this from the given argument. Eliminate.

(E) intimacy with siblings is more important to people at college age than it is at age 65 - irrelevant.

Thus, C is the best.

Sent from my Lenovo K53a48 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

KarishmaB, IanStewart, DmitryFarber, GMATNinja, @ThatDudeKnows,@GMATNinjaTwo, MartyTargetTestPrep, RonPurewal, MarkSullivan, AjiteshArun, EMPOWERgmatRichC, mikemcgarry, sayantanc2k, TommyWallach

how is C correct as the passage does not really seem to compare the two? Thanks

The reason (C) is correct is that the passage says the following:

Those surveyed who had never had any siblings or who said that at college age they were emotionally distant from their siblings were emotionally less well adjusted at 65

The part in bold indicates that simply having siblings is not sufficient to result in a person's being relatively well emotionally adjusted. Rather, it's being close to siblings that results in that.

So, we could say that, as (C) says, it is closeness to siblings rather than just having siblings that is more relevant to people’s emotional well-being at age 65.

That said, I'm not sure why both "rather than" and "more" are used in (C). One or the other would be sufficient for expressing the point that closeness is what's relevant. So, the use of both of them makes the sentence a bit redundant and confusing.

Understanding the argument -
Researchers have concluded from a survey of people aged 65 that emotional well-being in adulthood is closely related to intimacy with siblings earlier in life. - Researchers conclude that "emotional well-being in adulthood" is closely related to "intimacy with siblings earlier in life." This statement categorically mentions "intimacy," and that rules out that just having a sibling is not enough.

Those surveyed who had never had any siblings or who said that at college age they were emotionally distant from their siblings were emotionally less well adjusted at 65 than were those who had been close to at least one brother or sister. - This premise further strengthens that "just having a sibling" is insufficient. What they need for "emotional well-being in adulthood" is "INTIMACY" with their sibling.

Option Elimination - Inference

(A) some people who attended college as young adults are likely, as a result, to be emotionally better off at age 65 - "people who attended college as young adults are likely to be emotionally better" is out of the scope of the argument. Our scope is limited to "intimacy with sibling" and its connection with "emotional well-being in adulthood."

(B) the emotional well-being of people aged 65 depends on the emotional well-being of their siblings - Out of scope.

(C) it is closeness to siblings rather than just having siblings that is more relevant to people’s emotional well-being at age 65 - OK.

(D) people who are emotionally well off at college age are more likely to be emotionally well off at age 65 as well - This option goes very far. It states that "people who are emotionally well off at college age" are 100% guaranteed that "they are more likely to be emotionally well off at age 65 as well." The argument has mentioned college in the context of "intimacy with siblings." But this option takes familiar words and creates a sound distortion.

(E) intimacy with siblings is more important to people at college age than it is at age 65 - This comparison is out of scope.

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.