In Yasukawa's month-long study of blackbirds, the percentage of smaller birds that survived the duration of the study exceeded the percentage of larger birds that survived. However, Y
asukawa's conclusion that size is a determinant of a blackbird's chances of survival over a month-long period is probably mistaken, since smaller blackbirds are generally younger than larger ones.(A) Among the blackbirds that survived the month-long study, there was no relation between size and age.
There was relation Younger birds were smaller
(B) Larger blackbirds of a given age are actually more likely to survive over a one-month period than are smaller blackbirds of the same age,
This can not be inferred on the basis of information in the passage
(C) Among blackbirds of the same size, a difference in age probably does not indicate a difference in chances of survival over a one-month period.
This is a trap- Conclusion says size is immaterial; however, age does play a role
(D) Among blackbirds of the same age, a difference in size may not indicate a difference in chances of survival over a month-long period.
Same age = no difference in chances of survival; So Age plays some role -Correct
(E) With a larger sample of blackbirds, the percentage of smaller birds that survive a one-month period would be the same as the percentage of larger birds that survive.
Not true
IMO (D) is correct