1.“Lifeexpectancy” is the average age at death of the entire live-born population. In the middle of the nineteenth century, lifeexpectancy in North America was 40 years, whereas now it is nearly 80 years.
Thus, in those days, people must have been considered old at an age that we now consider the prime of life. Which of the following, if true, undermines the argument above?
(A) In the middle of the nineteenth century, the population of North America was significantly smaller than it is today.
(B) Most of the gains in lifeexpectancy in the last 150 years have come from reductions in the number of infants who die in their first year of life. B
(C)Many of the people who live to an advanced age today do so only because of medical technology that was unknown in the nineteenth century.
(D)The proportion of people who die in their seventies is significantly smaller today than is the proportion of people who die in their eighties.
(E) More people in the middle of the nineteenth century engaged regularly in vigorous physical activity than do so today.
答案B OG解释说平均年龄即认为是usual length of the life, 所以大家的理解这题的argument是说因为平均年龄增长了,人们的usual length of the life增加了。所以B选项指出平均年龄会存在误差,不能很好地表示人们通常的生命长度。但我对argument的理解是题目中最后一句话Thus, in those days, people must have been considered old at an age that we now consider the prime of life.
即现在我们认为年轻的年龄再过去可能已经是很老了。我选了E项,理解成过去中年人比现在的中年人做更多的运动,表明他们并不像我们认为的那样衰老,因此削弱了题目中的结论。 不知道我说明白了没有,希望大家来给点拨点拨,我这想法偏在哪里?十分感谢! |