Q2 - Among people who live to the age of 100

by **ohthatpatrick** Fri Dec 31, 1999 8:00 pm

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Strengthen

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion - People who live really long lives were genetically disposed to do so.
Evidence - Really old people often have behaviors that are often associated with shortened life spans.

Any prephrase?
The author is asusming that "in order to overcome these unhealthy behaviors and live to over 100, people would probably need to have a genetic reason for their longevity." We could strengthen her argument by ruling out alternative possibilities for how these really old people weren't killed by their unhealthy behaviors. Or we simply need more evidence for a genetic disposition to super long lives.

Correct answer:
E

Answer choice analysis:
A) Very weakly worded (red flag). Also, this drifts in the direction of weakening. It would provide an alternate explanation for their old age -- "it's not genetic disposition, it's that some of their bad habits counteracted other bad habits".

B) Very weakly worded (red flag). Any time you're given a correlation such as "a large proportion of super old people have had these four habits", it's perfectly neutral to mention that some people DON'T fit that picture. Correlations / large proportions don't mean 100%, so no one is surprised by what B is saying.

C) This is the exact same as B.

D) This has the same problems as B and C: weakly worded, so not very impactful. And no one was ever promising that ALL unhealthy people live to be over 100.

E) Scanning for strong langugae, we would find this one right away. And it's very relevant. It provides evidence for the "genetic disposition" theory. Siblings have similar genetic dispositions, so we would expect a genetic trait to show up a lot in siblings.

Takeaway/Pattern: When an author tries to explain / interpret a surprising background fact, we can always target the same two pressure points: 1. OTHER ways to explain / interpret the same fact, and 2. Evidence that would corroborate / undermine the plausibility of the AUTHOR's way of explaining / interpreting. This was a #2 correct answer.

#officialexplanation