The average life expectancy for the United States population as a whol

Any factors which breaks the relationship between the resident location and longevity will be an answer.

A Insurance company statisticians do not belive that moving to Hawaii will significantly lengthen the average Louisianan's life
Insurance company's belief does not affect the conclusion.

B The governor of Louisiana has falsely alleged that statistics for his state are inaccurate.
Same as A.

C The longivity ascribed to Hawwai's current popilation is attributable mostly to genetically determined factors
Correct. same logic with the prethink.

D Thirty percent of all Louisianans can expect to live longer than 77 years
Out of scope

E Most of the Hawwaiian Islands have levels of air population well below the national average for the US"
Out of scope

No Impact of statisticians belief on our belief w.r.t to the conclusion


Can we interpret it as, since it removes the possibility of statistics being inaccurate for Louisiana, hence it Strengthens the overall argument


Even with this, average life Expectancy in Louisiana could still be 71.7, hence no impact?


NO impact since
1. Most of Hawaiian Islands
2. Comparison b/w Air Pollution levels of Louisiana and USA

Comparison b/w Air Pollution levels of Louisiana and Hawaii would have helped us infer that LE rates are changing because of Environmental conditions and not genetic, hence would have Strengthened the argument.

mikemcgarry chiranjeev

To weaken the conclusion , we need to see for the option which says that , Hawaii place is not the reason for the longevity

A. The opinion of insurance companies is irrelevant , it makes statement that they don't believe but gives no particular reason to weaken.
B. May be the statistics are true , but still it doest clearly say anything.
C. This option clearly says that Hawaii is not the reason but some other genetical factor is the reason. COPRRECT
D. This option may be correct , but it does say why Hawaii is not the reason
E. Air pollution is completely irrelevant.

The average life expectancy for the United States population as a whole is 73.9 years, but children born in Hawaii will live an average of 77 years, and those born in Louisiana, 71.7 years. If a newlywed couple from Louisiana were to begin their family in Hawaii, therefore, their children would be expected to live longer than would be the case if the family remained in Louisiana.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?

(A) Insurance company statisticians do not believe that moving to Hawaii will significantly lengthen the average Louisianan's life.

What the insurance company statisticians BELIEVE does not matter. OUT.

(B) The governor of Louisiana has falsely alleged that statistics for his state are inaccurate.

Double-negative. In other words, the statistics for Louisiana are accurate. This gives us an important strengthener.

(C) The longevity ascribed to Hawaii's current population is attributable mostly to genetically determined factors.

Correct. Another causal factor not yet considered by the author.

(D) Thirty percent of all Louisianans can expect to live longer than 77 years.

In some senses, this is a restatement of the passage – we know that on average the life expectancy is 77…so there are some people that can be expected to live longer than 77. That aside, this choice does not weaken the main conclusion – that if a couple from Louisiana started their family in Hawaii that the child’s life expectancy would be greater than 72 years.

(E) Most of the Hawaiian Islands have levels of air pollution well below the national average for the United States.

Completely irrelevant. OUT.

This is an interesting question. The correct answer - option C

Understanding the argument
- Average Life Expectancy (ALE) for US as a whole -> 73.9 years
- ALE for children born in Hawaii - 77 years
- ALE for children born in Louisiana - 71.7 years
- Conclusion:
If a newly wed couple from Louisiana started their family in Hawai (i.e. children born in Hawaii), then these children would live longer than the case if the couple stayed in Louisiana (and started their family there).

Our job: is to weaken this conclusion

Prethinking
The key question that we should ask is

What new information will make us believe less in the conclusion stated above?

The passage only tells us that children born in Hawaii live longer, as per the data available. What we do not know here is the reason behind this higher ALE. Is it because of the environment/outer conditions in Hawaii, or is it because of some other reasons?

For example - what if the reason why Children born in Hawaii have a higher ALE is not because of Hawaii per se, but because of genetics. In such a case, even if this family started their family in Hawaii, the children born in Hawaii cannot be expected to have a higher ALE. Because genetically, they would have the genes of their parents who are Louisianans, not necessarily the type of genes that have led to higher ALE in Hawaii.

Weakener - a statement that indicates that children born in Hawaii have a higher ALE due to intrinsic reasons that have nothing to do with the environment/outer system in Hawaii e.g. genetics)

Option Choice Analysis
(A) Insurance company statisticians do not believe that moving to Hawaii will significantly lengthen the average Louisianan's life.
The opinion of the statisticians has no bearing on the conclusion about whether these children will live longer. Irrelevant. Remember, the conclusion is not about the average Louisianan. It is about these children in particular (will be born in Hawaii, to Louisianan parents)

(B) The governor of Louisiana has falsely alleged that statistics for his state are inaccurate.
Again irrelevant. Falsely alleged - means the stats are accurate. So, it cannot weaken the argument in any way

(C) The longevity ascribed to Hawaii's current population is attributable mostly to genetically determined factors.
Correct. In line with our prethinking

(D) Thirty percent of all Louisianans can expect to live longer than 77 years.
Not relevant. This statistic does nothing to increase or decrease our belief in the conclusion about the children

(E) Most of the Hawaiian Islands have levels of air pollution well below the national average for the United States.
Strengthens rather than weakens. Increases belief in the notion that something about the environment/outer system in Hawaii can be the reason for Higher ALE. In such a case, it strengthens the belief in the conclusion that children born here, even if the parents are Louisianan, may have a higher ALE


Hope this helps!

Regards,
Harsha

This statement, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion because it suggests that the longer life expectancy in Hawaii is primarily due to genetic factors rather than environmental ones. If genetics play the main role in determining life expectancy, then simply moving to Hawaii would not necessarily increase the life expectancy of the couple's children.


This statement supports the idea that Hawaii has a healthier environment, which could potentially contribute to a longer life expectancy. It does not weaken the conclusion that children born in Hawaii could live longer than those born in Louisiana.

­Hi GMATNinja KarishmaB MartyTargetTestPrep

I am a bit confused with option A, why don't we care about insurance company statisticians' comment? Is it also because average life expectancies are facts so statisticians can't challenge them OR just because option A is talking about the average Louisianan's life?

If option A was "Insurance company statisticians do not believe that moving to Hawaii will significantly lengthen the average Louisianan child's life.", would we have cared about what insurance company statisticians were saying and would it weaken the argument?

Knowing your thoughts on this would be very helpful to deeply understand this.