PrepTest 131

Incorrect. First, human life span isn't really a future trend. Second, EVT is shown to fit the data in one area more closely than the traditional models—that's not nearly enough to support the generalization in this answer choice.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Traditional statistical models predict people living beyond 130; EVT predicts max life span between 113 and 124. No one has lived longer than that.

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus features a soft comparison between traditional statistical methods and EVT, another statistical method that some statisticians believe is valuable. They make different predictions about the max life span of humans, with the traditional methods predicting a longer life span than EVT.

The stimulus ends with a note about the actual life span seen in humans. No one has lived longer than the upper limit of EVT (124 years). However, it's important to note that this doesn't disprove the traditional models. They may predict that 1/100 billion people would live that long, and it just hasn't happened yet. Current evidence aligns better with EVT, but it's not sufficient to rule out the traditional models, so we need to be wary of answers that go further than the details of the stimulus allow us to do.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the life span data is more in line with EVT than with the traditional methods, even though it doesn't preclude the latter from being correct. This answer reflects the comparative nature of the stimulus and doesn't go too far, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
In Must Be True questions, be sure to pick an answer that reflects the strength of the stimulus. Answers that are particularly strong tend to be incorrect because they lack sufficient support in the stimulus.

Incorrect. The stimulus notes that EVT says the limit on human life span is "probably" between 113 and 124 years, so this answer is too strong.

Incorrect. There's no indication that EVT sets a limit that can't be overcome by research and medical advances. It may simply reflect the current reality, not what's possible.

Incorrect. This answer is too broad. There may be areas where EVT is useful, but the traditional methods might work better in others and thus shouldn't be replaced by EVT.