OG12-01 已搜，没有问过的

ConnieC

1. “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

OG上对C的解释是：C This point supports rather than weakens the argument
但是我打死也想不通为是C是支持的选项。

我觉得C指出了18世纪没有medical technology ，那说明那是的人是因为生病无药可医才死的，而不是自然死亡，所以不能说明18世纪时40岁的人已经old了

JOJO99

“被认为老”
设想，在那个没有先进医药技术的时代，普遍寿命是40岁。活到40岁的人就被认为是“老”字辈了。

其实出题人只是单纯的想说明医药技术，这个原因使得一个平均活到40岁，一个平均活到80岁。加强了结论。

sheikh239

"那说明那是的人是因为生病无药可医才死的，而不是自然死亡"

这个是你的常识, 还是题目告诉你的?
如果是你的常识就错了

我偏要说 medical technology 的缺乏导致他们在40岁就自然死亡了