Based on data collected from policyholders,

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: unwilling1% picked this

   Some people would be unwilling to modify their weights solely to increase the general population’s

   This argument has nothing to do with claiming that people are willing to modify their weights. It's only saying that if they modified their weight, a certain result would follow.

   1%
2. B

   Out of Scope: companies' intent14% picked this

   Life insurance companies intended their tables to guide individuals in adjusting their weights in order to

   The author doesn't need to assume that life insurance companies intended their tables to be used the way the author is using them. I might use a world map to plan an invasion of Australia. That doesn't mean that the map maker intended for the map to be used to invade Australia.

   14%
3. C

   Weakens3% picked this

   The tables include data gathered from policyholders whose deaths resulted from accidents in addition to those whose deaths

   The author doesn't need to assume anything about the specifics of how the life insurance company puts together its table. But if the table includes deaths that result from accidents, that actually introduces some noise that calls into question the way the author is interpreting the correlation. An alternate explanation for the 2nd sentence could be, "People whose weight fell outside the standard range didn't live less long because their weight killed them; these people were more likely to die in an accident that killed them much earlier in life than natural causes would have."

   3%
4. D

   Irrelevant Comparison6% picked this

   Holders of life insurance policies do not have longer overall life expectancies than

   The author doesn't need to compare insurance policy holders to the general population. It doesn't affect the argument whether policyholders have shorter life expectancies, longer ones, or similar ones. The only logically relevant part of the policyholder table is the comparison between policyholders within weight range vs. not in weight range.

   6%
5. E

   Correct75% picked this

   People’s efforts to modify their weight to conform to a given range would not damage their health enough to

   Why this is right

   As we predicted, this answer rules out a possible objection. The author makes a prediction, and we could fight that prediction by saying that if people try to change their weight to get it in range, it will not increase their life expectancy. Whenever we're doing Necessary Assumption and we see an answer with "ruling out" language like not / no, we want to consider it. Tons of correct answers (the vast majority of Defender answers) have that feature. If we negate this answer, does it hurt the argument? "People efforts to modify their weight would damage their health enough to decrease their overall life expectancies" Yes, that definitely weakens! In this case, it basically contradicts the conclusion. The correct answer, when negated, will weaken the argument. In this case, it weakens it so much it basically refutes the conclusion!

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   75%