Question

The average life expectancy for the United States population 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.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?

A. Insurance company statisticians do not believe that moving to Hawaii will significantly lengthen the average Louisianan’s life.
B. The governor of Louisiana has falsely alleged that statistics for his state are inaccurate.
C. The longevity ascribed to Hawaii’s current population is attributable mostly to genetically determined factors.
D. Thirty percent of all Louisianans can expect to live longer than 77 years.
E. Most of the Hawaiian Islands have levels of air pollution well below the national average for the United States

Answer 1

The statement indicating that Hawaii's higher life expectancy is mostly due to genetic factors would most seriously weaken the conclusion that a Louisiana couple's children would live longer if born in Hawaii.

Step-by-step explanation:

The conclusion drawn in the passage suggests that children born to a couple from Louisiana would live longer if the family moved to Hawaii. Among the provided options, the statement that would most seriously weaken this conclusion is: The longevity ascribed to Hawaii’s current population is attributable mostly to genetically determined factors. If true, this implies that the longer life expectancy in Hawaii may not be directly caused by the environment or lifestyle factors that the Louisiana couple's children could benefit from, but rather by genetics specific to the current population of Hawaii. Therefore, a move to Hawaii would not necessarily result in a longer life expectancy for the children of the couple from Louisiana.