Actually, the explanations the article put forward were unrelated to the "male weakness" hypothesis. Riskier lifestyles, tougher treatment of their bodies by me

Actually, the explanations the article put forward were unrelated to the "male weakness" hypothesis. Riskier lifestyles, tougher treatment of their bodies by men, unspecified effects by testerone, and size differences were all listed as explanations. Near the end, after these explanations had been discarded as insufficient to explain the full difference, we get this: "Something about being male 'influences unfavorably the resistance ... to disease at all ages.' He called it 'male weakness.'" The quote then reuses the same basic argument by the author, that there are numerous valid reasons that men die younger, but they cannot explain the full difference. Because of this, the author claims that there must be some other force at play (which is quite likely true) but instead of offering a scientifically testable hypothesis he simply chalks it up to some vague notion of male weakness. Even if "male weakness" was better defined, no further explanation is offered to support this theory at all. It's definitely a cheat. The article started with sound data and logic and ended with an arbitrary conclusion not based on any of the prior considerations. It allows the author to assert a predetermined conclusion based on the appearance of thorough research.