- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu Apr 14, 2016 11:53 am
#23045
Complete Question Explanation
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (E)
The argument observes that people who fall within expected weight ranges tend to live higher than those whose fall outside the ranges. The argument concludes that people whose weights fall outside the ranges would improve their life expectancies by modifying their weight to fall in-range.
The argument presumes that the correlation indicates a causal relationship, and the argument makes assumptions about a number of possible factors. The question asks you to identify one of those assumptions.
Answer choice (A): The argument concerns whether some people would improve life expectancy by modifying their weights, and it does not matter whether some people are unwilling to try.
Answer choice (B): The argument does not need to assume that insurance companies provide the tables as guidelines for increasing life-expectancies. Even if the insurance companies have no such intent, the tables could unintentionally offer reasonable guidelines, so this choice introduces an unnecessary consideration.
Answer choice (C): If the tables include data from deaths that occurred by accident, that could actually make the possible causal connection between weight and life-expectancy less convincing. Certainly, the data might still represent that accidents in certain situations are likely to affect one weight-group more than another, but that still introduces another factor, weakening the argument.
Answer choice (D): If the life expectancy for life-insurance holders is no higher than that for the population, that supports the conclusion somewhat by possibly eliminating a factor that makes insurance-holders special. However, it is not necessary that the argument makes this assumption. Even if holders of life-insurance policies have higher life-expectancies than does the general population, that could be attributed to better conformity to proper weight ranges. This choice does not offer much support, and does not represent a necessary assumption.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The possibility that modifying weight (for more or less) could damage health is another factor, so the argument has to assume that any such damage would not outweigh benefits respective to lifespan. If the damage did outweigh the benefits respective to lifespan, causing a decrease in life expectancy, the conclusion of the stimulus would be false.
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (E)
The argument observes that people who fall within expected weight ranges tend to live higher than those whose fall outside the ranges. The argument concludes that people whose weights fall outside the ranges would improve their life expectancies by modifying their weight to fall in-range.
The argument presumes that the correlation indicates a causal relationship, and the argument makes assumptions about a number of possible factors. The question asks you to identify one of those assumptions.
Answer choice (A): The argument concerns whether some people would improve life expectancy by modifying their weights, and it does not matter whether some people are unwilling to try.
Answer choice (B): The argument does not need to assume that insurance companies provide the tables as guidelines for increasing life-expectancies. Even if the insurance companies have no such intent, the tables could unintentionally offer reasonable guidelines, so this choice introduces an unnecessary consideration.
Answer choice (C): If the tables include data from deaths that occurred by accident, that could actually make the possible causal connection between weight and life-expectancy less convincing. Certainly, the data might still represent that accidents in certain situations are likely to affect one weight-group more than another, but that still introduces another factor, weakening the argument.
Answer choice (D): If the life expectancy for life-insurance holders is no higher than that for the population, that supports the conclusion somewhat by possibly eliminating a factor that makes insurance-holders special. However, it is not necessary that the argument makes this assumption. Even if holders of life-insurance policies have higher life-expectancies than does the general population, that could be attributed to better conformity to proper weight ranges. This choice does not offer much support, and does not represent a necessary assumption.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The possibility that modifying weight (for more or less) could damage health is another factor, so the argument has to assume that any such damage would not outweigh benefits respective to lifespan. If the damage did outweigh the benefits respective to lifespan, causing a decrease in life expectancy, the conclusion of the stimulus would be false.