顶, 我也不懂OG对于C和D的解释 3. "Life expectancy" is the average age at death of the entire live-born population. In the middle of the nineteenth century, life expectancy 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 life expectancy in the last 150 years have come from reductions in the number of infants who die in their first year of life. (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. : Argument Evaluation Situation Life expectancy for mid-nineteenth-century North Americans was 40 years; now it is almost 80. at we think of as the prime of He must have been considered old in that earlier era. Reasoning What point weakens this argument? The argument relies on the logic of having a great many more 80-year-old people in the population now than was the case 150 years ago. What would challenge this logic? The argument is built upon the average age at death and uses a definition of life expectancy that embraces the entire population of those born alive. What if, in the nineteenth century, the number of infants born alive but not surviving their first year was fu higher than it is today? Then the average age at time of death could be significantly reduced by a very large number of infant deaths. On the basis of such information about infant mortality rates, it would not be fair to assume that what today is considered the prime of life was in that earlier time considered old. A The size of the population is irrelevant to the argument. B Correct. This statement properly identifies the factor that undermines the argument: it was falsely assumed that age for an entire population was simply extended when actually the average age at time of death was significantly raised when the number of infants dying in their first year was reduced. C This point supports rather than weakens the argument. D This point supports the argument. E The regular exercise of one of the two populations compared does not affect the argument. The correct answer is B. |