In need of an explanation for this answer

Hi @lowe1sl, Happy to help! The passage begins by raising the question: "can any research be found to validate the contention that those who spend time plucking out their gray hairs have more negative attitudes toward the elderly than those who shrug their shoulders about gray hairs?" The passage concludes: "unless a person's psychopathology leads him or her to overgeneralize, there is no necessary connection." Connection - > person's psychopathology leads to overgeneralization Person's psychopathology does not lead to overgeneralization - > no connection Why is this the case? First, "it is reasonable to like the elderly yet dislike the idea of impaired eyesight and hearing" (or growing older, which is represented by gray hairs). Second, the passage states that while "holding negative attitudes toward older people merely because they are old is immoral, according to nearly universally accepted ethical standards... there is nothing immoral about disliking some concomitant of the aging process." Overall, the passage is arguing that there is no evidence to suggest that those who pluck out their gray hairs have more negative attitudes toward the elderly unless their psychopathology leads them to overgeneralize. This is because it is reasonable, and not immoral, to dislike parts of the aging process (e.g. gray hairs) while not holding negative attitudes toward elderly people. The main point of the passage is its conclusion: there is no necessary connection between plucking gray hairs (disliking some of the physical concomitant of growing old) and disliking the elderly themselves. Answer choice B is incorrect because it is simply a premise used to support the main point (conclusion) of the passage. Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any further questions.

Thanks!