[求助]OG11 Question 103

tristesser

The average life expectancy for the United Statespopulation as a whole is 73.9 years, but children born in Hawaii will live an average of 77 years, and those born in Louisiana, 71.7 years. If a newlywed couple from Louisiana were to begin their family in Hawaii, therefore, their children would be expected to live longer than would be the case if the family remained in Louisiana.

103. Which of the followign statements, if true, would most significantly stengthen the conclusion drawn in the passage?

A. As population density increases in Hawaii, life expectancy figures for that state are likely to be revised downward.
B. Environmental factors tending to favor longevity are abundant in Hawaii and less numerous in Louisiana.
C. Twenty-five percent of all Louisianans who move to Hawaii live longer than 77 years.
D. Over the last decade, average life expectancy has risen at a higher rate for Louisianans than for Hawaiians.
E. Studies show that the average life expectancy for Hawaiians who move permanently to Louisianan is roughly equal to that of Hawaiians who remain in Hawaii.

The answer is B. The explaination given is This statement properly identifies a factor that strengthens the conclusion. I choose E. My reason is if the average life expectancy for Hawaiians who move permanently to Louisiana is roughly equal to that of Hawaiians who remain in Hawaii, we can conclude that where the baby, who borns in Hawaii, will live does not vary the life expectancy of the baby. However, I think the flaw in B is that the baby could be born in Hawaii and move to Louisianan the second day, the baby will not be able to take advantage of the environmental factors.

Am I wrong?

victorhang

B没有任何疑问啊...

论述的结论是转移到Hawaiia的baby比留在Louisiana的baby活的更久一些..

B说在Hawaii的环境的因素比在Louisiana的更有利于life expectancy...,显然stengthen了论述的结论.

至于E,说有研究表明永久移民到Louisiana的Hawaiians的life expectancy等于那些一直留在原地的Hawaiians 一样... it is irrelevant to conclusion.

tristesser

Victorhang, my problem with B is that the baby could be born in Hawaii and move
to Louisianan the second day, the baby will not be able to take
advantage of the environmental factors; B doesn't justify why should they make sure the baby is born in Hawaii. That's why I choose E. Seemed more logical to me.  

tristesser

So I thought the assumption the author made to reach the conclusion is that the baby will live in Hawaii because his/her parents lives in Hawaii, which makes E the more logical choice.

gogokaka

请问E为什么不对呢？

从Hawaiians的人move去Louisiana的average life expectancy降低至与Louisiana的人一致，就可以说明不是基因而是环境的影响。
那不就可以得出，在H地出生的人会比留在L地活得更久么？

请指指点点！