Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 29 Aug 2014, 20:59

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

CR: service occupation employment

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 19
Location: ny
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

CR: service occupation employment [#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2003, 19:59
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

50% (02:12) correct 50% (01:41) wrong based on 2 sessions
I found this one challenging... let me know which answer you'd pick and why!

Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations. This category, however, will not increase its share of total employment, whereas the category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share.

If the estimates for the above are accurate, which of the following conclusions can be drawn?

a) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations.
b) In 1995 more people will be working in high paying service occ. than will be working in low-paying service occ.
c) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982.
d) Many of the people who were working in low-paying service occupations in 1982 will be working in high-paying service occupations by 1995.
e) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 68
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

[#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2003, 21:13
I go with A. Only when the number of ppl already in low paying service jobs are higher theri percentage increase may not be as high as for ppl in services which are high paying and where number of ppl initially was low. let me know the right answer.
cheers
neeraj
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 132
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 23 Sep 2003, 23:52
ngulati:
You seem to have confused the data - everything is vice versa - the low paid category must be having less employed than the high-paid ctaegory does :P Look, the stimulus says that <the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations>, which if applied the mathematics assumes that it is a low paid categoty, which must have less number of employed.
Hence the answer is B

Last edited by vaka on 24 Sep 2003, 00:51, edited 1 time in total.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1613
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Sep 2003, 00:49
also vote for B. Low-paid people hold the same share while employing the most people. High-paid people increase their share—this fact means that overall there are more HP people, though they do not hire that much.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 19
Location: ny
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Sep 2003, 03:43
The answer is A.

The only way I can think of justifying this answer is this:
If there are more people in low-paying service jobs in 1982, then it is possible that even if they hire the most number of people, this number of people does not add very much to its share of total employment (because it was already very large).

However, if there are less people in high paying service jobs in 1982, they can hire a fewer number of people than the low-paying category does but still increase its share of total employment (because the number of people they are adding, though it be less than the number the low-paying category adds, is a greater percentage of the number of people the high paying category had in 1982.

Mathematically, I think it's similar to this:
Number of low paid people in 1982: 200
Number of high paid ppl in 1982: 2
LP adds 10 people---> total LP in 1995: 210
HP adds 9 people ---> total HP in 1995: 11

So the HP category adds a lot more percentage-wise than the LP category, even though the LP category hires the most absolute number of people.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 132
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Sep 2003, 04:18
Then I will tick this problem as that allowing ambiguity: there may be 2 different interpretations of term INCREASE, suggesting 2 different answer choice, which could be both correct depending on one's imagination peculiarities. :roll:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 68
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Sep 2003, 06:20
well vaka I dint misinterpret the data. I used quantitative fundas as suggested by jlyngl and I dont think A is ambiguous in any way. A percentage increase in any quantity would always be less if it is already very high as compared to a quantity which was initially low. hope it helps

cheers
neeraj
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 132
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Sep 2003, 07:11
No, guys,
that's not the point I am trying to make. Just look here. I will
use jlyngal data to illustrate my reasoning.
LP adds 10 people ---> total LP in 1995: 210 (10>9, BUT, in terms of %: LP increased on 5%)
HP adds 9 people ---> total HP in 1995: 11 (9<10, BUT in terms of % HP increased on 450%)
You follow me?
A) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations;
A is correct, since number of LP emplyees is 210 (210>11) and increased on 10 (10>9);
B) In 1995 more people will be working in high paying service occ. than will be working in low-paying service occ.
B is correct, since according to conditions provided in stimulus <the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations> The greatest increase (in terms of %) was in a group representing 450% increase, that is why it is a group with 11 employed, which stands for LP group in year 1995. Then another 210 people represent HP group.
:wink:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 19
Location: ny
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Sep 2003, 09:06
Vaka, I still don't quite understand your reasoning for B.

vaka wrote:
LP adds 10 people ---> total LP in 1995: 210 (10>9, BUT, in terms of %: LP increased on 5%)
HP adds 9 people ---> total HP in 1995: 11 (9<10, BUT in terms of % HP increased on 450%)
You follow me?
B) In 1995 more people will be working in high paying service occ. than will be working in low-paying service occ.
B is correct, since according to conditions provided in stimulus <the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations> The greatest increase (in terms of %) was in a group representing 450% increase, that is why it is a group with 11 employed, which stands for LP group in year 1995. Then another 210 people represent HP group.
:wink:


In B, it says that there will be "more people" in HP in 1995. But if you look at the numbers from my math thing, there are only 11 people in the HP group vs. 210 people in the LP group. Clearly, there is a lower number of people in HP than in LP in 1995. I think "more people" in this context can only refer to actual numbers of people and not relative percentages.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 132
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Sep 2003, 09:28
jlyngal
No, wrong. You dont' get me coz u use conclusion as an evidence, which is not appropriate.
Ok:
<Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations>
450% of increase indicates that it is a LP category. How many people in it? Eleven. Then how many people are in HP category? Obviously, it is 210.
What is the statement B saying?
<In 1995 more people will be working in high paying service occ. than will be working in low-paying service occ> Holy truth. Isn't it?
That is why I said it was ambiguous. U used 10 versus 9 as a reference, but I used 450% versus 5% :madd
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 19
Location: ny
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Sep 2003, 10:56
There are two pieces of evidence:
1) Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations.

This says that there will be a greater increase in the NUMBER (not percent) of people hired into LP. "Number" in this context refers to an absolute (not relative) value.

2) LP will not increase its share of total employment; HP will increase its share.

The conclusion one must draw has to resolve these two pieces of evidence.


vaka wrote:
450% of increase indicates that it is a LP category.

Why does 450% indicate it's in the LP category? The way I was thinking was that if one category increased 5% and one increased 450%, it would be LP that was 5% and HP that was 450% (so that evidence #2 would be true). Of course, I know that 5% is increasing the LP share a little bit, but if you took a more extreme example with numbers, you could get that percent to be essentially zero.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 132
Location: Ukraine
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 24 Sep 2003, 11:59
jlyngal
You are right, LP will definitely increase it's share if there are fewer people than in HP.
Answer A
Tired
too late here
:sleep
GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2003
Posts: 771
Location: New York NY 10024
Schools: Haas, MFE; Anderson, MBA; USC, MSEE
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: service occupation employment [#permalink] New post 25 Sep 2003, 05:40
jlyngal wrote:
I found this one challenging... let me know which answer you'd pick and why!

Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations. This category, however, will not increase its share of total employment, whereas the category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share.

If the estimates for the above are accurate, which of the following conclusions can be drawn?

a) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations.
b) In 1995 more people will be working in high paying service occ. than will be working in low-paying service occ.
c) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982.
d) Many of the people who were working in low-paying service occupations in 1982 will be working in high-paying service occupations by 1995.
e) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995.


A is correct.

Use a simple example. Suppose there are 90 LP and 10 HP to start. After 3 years, there are 100 LP and 19 HP. LP has higher increase in numbers (10 to 9), but HP increased share from 10% to 16%. The only way this can happen is if A is true.
_________________

Best,

AkamaiBrah
Former Senior Instructor, Manhattan GMAT and VeritasPrep
Vice President, Midtown NYC Investment Bank, Structured Finance IT
MFE, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, Class of 2005
MBA, Anderson School of Management, UCLA, Class of 1993

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Oct 2003
Posts: 73
Location: USA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: service occupation employment [#permalink] New post 22 Oct 2003, 19:46
jlyngal wrote:
I found this one challenging... let me know which answer you'd pick and why!

Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations. This category, however, will not increase its share of total employment, whereas the category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share.

If the estimates for the above are accurate, which of the following conclusions can be drawn?

a) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations.
b) In 1995 more people will be working in high paying service occ. than will be working in low-paying service occ.
c) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982.
d) Many of the people who were working in low-paying service occupations in 1982 will be working in high-paying service occupations by 1995.
e) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995.

IT is really unclear with the INCREASE. It can be absolute number or relative number.
If it is relative you will see that E also good.
Do it must be absolute number and in this case A is the ONLY answer.
However, not really good one :roll:
_________________

I have 2 month for gmat.

Re: CR: service occupation employment   [#permalink] 22 Oct 2003, 19:46
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
employment tt11234 1 12 Jun 2010, 05:39
CR 1000: Postal Service vsaxena 9 01 Nov 2007, 00:51
CR 1000: Civil Service Employees vsaxena 1 28 Oct 2007, 17:14
Employment Piter 6 20 Sep 2007, 07:51
CR - Civil service employees allabout 11 20 Dec 2005, 06:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by

CR: service occupation employment

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.