Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
04 Feb 2013, 02:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a trade publication for the insurance industry:
“Each generation of Americans has lived longer that the ones preceding it, as the national life expectancy has approached 80 years old in recent years. The progress of medical technology shows no sign of abating. Therefore, we can confidently predict that most children born in America in the next decade will live past the age of ninety.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
RESPONSE:
The argument claims that since the progress of medical technology shows no sign of abating, therefore it can be confidently predicted that most children, born in America in the next decade, will live past the age of ninety. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument is based on certain assumptions for which there's no clear evidence.
First, the author readily assumes that medical technology is the sole factor that affects the life expectancy. Undoubtedly, progress in medical technology and affordable medical services may lead to a higher expectancy rate, but there may be other factors too. For instance, a decline in road accidents could be one of the reason. Similarly, strict laws for practicing doctors could be another one, since many innocent people die each year due to negligence and carelessness of doctors. However the author fails to consider these critical factors. Additionally, it is also important to figure it out that whether a common man in america has access to all those advancements and developments in medical science. If only rich and influential citizens avail the fruit of medical technology, then the claim made by author remains unsubstantiated and open to debates.
Second, the author assumes that a trend that has continued in past will continue in future also. However, this is rather a very weak and unsubstantiated claim. How can a trend continue just because one of the contributing factors. In fact, the author fails to consider the relevance and importance of other factors, as stated in last paragraph, that could be crucial to an increase in life expectancy. Perhaps, it could also be possible that despite significant advancement in medical technology, life expectancy increased by just 1-2 years in last century. If this were the case, then it's certainly next to impossible that within a few decades it will increase by over 10 years.
Third, the author concludes that 'most' children, born in next decade, will live past the age of ninety. Even if we assume that the trend will continue in future, it's not at all clear that today what is the proportion of people who live past 80 years. It could be possible that because a few people live past 125 years, the average life expectancy is above 80.
Without convincing answers to the above mentioned questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking.
In conclusion the argument is flawed and hence unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all relevant facts, rather than making certain assumptions.
The following appeared in a trade publication for the insurance industry:
“Each generation of Americans has lived longer that the ones preceding it, as the national life expectancy has approached 80 years old in recent years. The progress of medical technology shows no sign of abating. Therefore, we can confidently predict that most children born in America in the next decade will live past the age of ninety.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
RESPONSE:
The argument claims that since the progress of medical technology shows no sign of abating, therefore it can be confidently predicted that most children, born in America in the next decade, will live past the age of ninety. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument is based on certain assumptions for which there's no clear evidence.
First, the author readily assumes that medical technology is the sole factor that affects the life expectancy. Undoubtedly, progress in medical technology and affordable medical services may lead to a higher expectancy rate, but there may be other factors too. For instance, a decline in road accidents could be one of the reason. Similarly, strict laws for practicing doctors could be another one, since many innocent people die each year due to negligence and carelessness of doctors. However the author fails to consider these critical factors. Additionally, it is also important to figure it out that whether a common man in america has access to all those advancements and developments in medical science. If only rich and influential citizens avail the fruit of medical technology, then the claim made by author remains unsubstantiated and open to debates.
Second, the author assumes that a trend that has continued in past will continue in future also. However, this is rather a very weak and unsubstantiated claim. How can a trend continue just because one of the contributing factors. In fact, the author fails to consider the relevance and importance of other factors, as stated in last paragraph, that could be crucial to an increase in life expectancy. Perhaps, it could also be possible that despite significant advancement in medical technology, life expectancy increased by just 1-2 years in last century. If this were the case, then it's certainly next to impossible that within a few decades it will increase by over 10 years.
Third, the author concludes that 'most' children, born in next decade, will live past the age of ninety. Even if we assume that the trend will continue in future, it's not at all clear that today what is the proportion of people who live past 80 years. It could be possible that because a few people live past 125 years, the average life expectancy is above 80.
Without convincing answers to the above mentioned questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking.
In conclusion the argument is flawed and hence unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all relevant facts, rather than making certain assumptions.
05 Feb 2013, 13:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
It is certainly getting better.
I would also focus on the question of medical technology vs. other causes. Alternatively, you can also argue that the life expectancy probably cannot increase indefinitely.
sahil2441
Then how come the average is already above 80?
sahil2441
Yes, but this assumption is unreasonable. If it says "each generation lived longer than the previous one", then we expect the difference to be statistically significant; perhaps a few years. There were several generations in a century, so it cannot be just 1-2 years.
sahil2441
It is also possible that many people live until 81-89. However, if the average is so high as 80, it is not so unreasonable to assume that a lot of people should live until their nineties... though perhaps not "most".
I would also focus on the question of medical technology vs. other causes. Alternatively, you can also argue that the life expectancy probably cannot increase indefinitely.
Quote:
This sounds awkward.
13 Dec 2021, 07:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
The argument claims that most children born in America in the next decade will live past the age of ninety. Stated in this way, the argument failed to communicate several key facts on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The argument relies on the assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and open to debate.
First of all, the argument assumes that most children born in America will live past the age of 90 since each generation of America has lived longer than the ones preceding it. This argument is a stretch since the argument does not consider external factors that may impact life expectancy for future generations. For example, industrialization may increase pollution. As a result, it will negatively impact well-being of population, hindering an average life expectancy age. In addition, it has been observed for the past decades that younger generation experiences a high level of stress to succeed in their personal and career lives. It does have a negative impact on the emotional well-being of younger people. More younger people experience a high level of depression compared to people in the previous decades. Emotional well-being is another factor that should be considered to predict an average life expectancy age for future generations. Without considering above listed factors, one is left with the impression that the argument is a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
Secondly, it is claimed that most children born in America will live past the age of ninety since the progress of medical technology does not show any signs of abating. The argument failed to provide evidence to show that there is a correlation between life expectancy and progress of medical technology. While it is true that development of medical technology will help to cure serious diseases that deemed lethal in the past, increasing the chances for individuals to survive, it is not guaranteed that newly developed medical technology may be able to address psychological diseases such as level of depression. The argument could have been strengthened if it communicated supporting evidence to show the correlation between development of medical technology and increased average life expectancy age.
Lastly, the argument failed to address the following key questions on the basis of which it can be evaluated:
What are the external factors that may impact life expectancy for future generations?
What are the differences between each generation, so average life expectancy may be different for children born in America in future decades?
Without answering these questions, one is left with the impression that an argument is a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
To conclude, for the above-mentioned reasons, the argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate. The argument could have been addressed if the following information was communicated:
1. Supporting evidence should be provided to show external factors that may impact life expectancy for future generations.
2. Similarities and differences between each generation.
3. Correlation between development in medical technology and life expectancy.
To assess a merit of a certain situation, it is essential to have a knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains flawed, unconvincing, and open to debate.
First of all, the argument assumes that most children born in America will live past the age of 90 since each generation of America has lived longer than the ones preceding it. This argument is a stretch since the argument does not consider external factors that may impact life expectancy for future generations. For example, industrialization may increase pollution. As a result, it will negatively impact well-being of population, hindering an average life expectancy age. In addition, it has been observed for the past decades that younger generation experiences a high level of stress to succeed in their personal and career lives. It does have a negative impact on the emotional well-being of younger people. More younger people experience a high level of depression compared to people in the previous decades. Emotional well-being is another factor that should be considered to predict an average life expectancy age for future generations. Without considering above listed factors, one is left with the impression that the argument is a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
Secondly, it is claimed that most children born in America will live past the age of ninety since the progress of medical technology does not show any signs of abating. The argument failed to provide evidence to show that there is a correlation between life expectancy and progress of medical technology. While it is true that development of medical technology will help to cure serious diseases that deemed lethal in the past, increasing the chances for individuals to survive, it is not guaranteed that newly developed medical technology may be able to address psychological diseases such as level of depression. The argument could have been strengthened if it communicated supporting evidence to show the correlation between development of medical technology and increased average life expectancy age.
Lastly, the argument failed to address the following key questions on the basis of which it can be evaluated:
What are the external factors that may impact life expectancy for future generations?
What are the differences between each generation, so average life expectancy may be different for children born in America in future decades?
Without answering these questions, one is left with the impression that an argument is a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
To conclude, for the above-mentioned reasons, the argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate. The argument could have been addressed if the following information was communicated:
1. Supporting evidence should be provided to show external factors that may impact life expectancy for future generations.
2. Similarities and differences between each generation.
3. Correlation between development in medical technology and life expectancy.
To assess a merit of a certain situation, it is essential to have a knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains flawed, unconvincing, and open to debate.
