Let me break down the argument.
-Some statisticians believe that the method called extreme value theory (EVT) is a powerful analytical tool.
(Background info) -The curves generated by traditional statistical methods to analyze empirical data on human longevity predict that some humans would live beyond 130 years.
(Fact) -According to the curves, EVT generates, however,
Some contrast is introduced herethe limit on human life spans is probably between 113 and 124 a years.
(Okay, new fact which goes against the previous one - one of the two must be accurate) -To date, no one has lived beyond the upper limits indicated by EVT analysis.
(More info - this strengthens the EVT curves accuracy over that of the traditional statistical curves , as expected one of the two opposing facts got strengthened) Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
INFERENCE TYPE - the correct statement would be 100% supported either directly or indirectly by the argument.(A) EVT is, in general, a more reliable method for projecting future trends based on past observations than are traditional statistical methods
HOLD. Discard vs. B - not mentioned about the "in general" accuracy of EVT but only age curves are talked about(B) EVT fits the data about the highest observed human life spans more closely than do traditional statistical methods
Seems closer to what is explicitely mentioned - the second fact ( of EVT curves) is more accurate accrding to the last fact introduced in the sentence(C) According to the findings derived through the use of EVT, it is physically impossible for any human being to live longer than 124 years
Too extreme - nothing is mentioned to be impossible. Especially predictions of the future cannot be made by the argument provided(D) Given the results generated by EVT, there is no point in conducting research aimed at greatly extending the upper limit on human life spans
BS Option - no predictions of the future possible(E) Traditional statistical methods of empirical data analysis should eventually be replaced by some version of EVT
Discard for same reasons as previous twoOkay so (A) vs. (B)...
A could be true but is not directly mentioned but
B is definitely true as it has been explicitly mentioned in the given set of facts.
Notice we do not have a conclusionHence Option (B) is our choice.
Regards,
Gladi
nightblade354 wrote:
Some statisticians believe that the method called extreme value theory (EVT) is a powerful analytical tool. The curves generated by traditional statistical methods to analyze empirical data on human longevity predict that some humans would live beyond 130 years. According to the curves EVT generates, however, the limit on human life spans is probably between 113 and 124 years. To date, no one has lived beyond the upper limits indicated by EVT analysis. Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
(A) EVT is, in general, a more reliable method for projecting future trends based on past observations than are traditional statistical methods
(B) EVT fits the data about the highest observed human life spans more closely than do traditional statistical methods
(C) According to the findings derived through the use of EVT, it is physically impossible for any human being to live longer than 124 years
(D) Given the results generated by EVT, there is no point in conducting research aimed at greatly extending the upper limit on human life spans
(E) Traditional statistical methods of empirical data analysis should eventually be replaced by some version of EVT