Anthropologists claim that the human life span has increased over the

Question

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.

Which of the following pieces of evidence would most weaken the author's argument?

(A) A list of Biblical characters, such as Methusalah, who are reputed to have lived to a great age.

(B) A three-thousand year old corpse which, according to an examination of the bones and teeth, died in its sixties or seventies.

(C) An archeological excavation of an iron-age graveyard containing a large number of bodies of young children.

(D) A study showing that the largest increase in the human lifespan within living memory took place within the twentieth century.

(E) an examination of various ancient burial sites containing mummified remains of humans in their thirties and forties.

Choice A - the lifespan of one person is not relevant
Choice B - this would support the author's conclusion, not weaken it
Choice C - one graveyard containing the bodies of children does provide evidence for or against the argument
Choice D - does not apply to the argument
Choice E - the best choice because it provides evidence of a shorter lifespan for more than one body and in more than one location

globaldesi · Answer

C and E are probable but C weaken because it shows only of young children and no evidence of adults younger than 60. whereas E shows most burial sites examination of thirties and forties . Hence E is a better candidate

(C) An archeological excavation of an iron-age graveyard containing a large number of bodies of young children.

(E) an examination of various ancient burial sites containing mummified remains of humans in their thirties and forties.

Ilhomjon98 · Answer

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!

AndrewN · Answer

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:

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.

Reputation and  verifiable documentation  on longevity are not the same. This is an easy answer choice to see off.

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.

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.

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.

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

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Anthropologists claim that the human life span has increased over the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Anthropologists claim that the human life span has increased over the

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards