|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 48
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Demographers doing research for an international economics [#permalink]
 14 Oct 2005, 22:26
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Demographers doing research for an international economics newsletter claim that the average per capita income in the country of Kuptala is substantially lower than that in the country of Bahlton. They also claim, however, that whereas poverty is relatively rare in Kuptala, over half the population of Bahlton lives in extreme poverty. At least one of the demographer's claims must, therefore, be wrong.
The argument above is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
A) It rejects an empirical claim about the average per capita incomes in the two countries without making any attempt to discredit that claim by offering additional economic evidence.
B) It treats the vague term "poverty" as though it had a precise and universally accepted meaning.
C) It overlooks the possibility that the number of people in the two countries who live in poverty could be the same ven though the percentages of the two populations that live in poverty differ markedly.
D) It fails to show that wealth and poverty have the same social significance in Kuptala as in Bahlton.
E) It does not consider the possibility that incomes in Kuptala, unlike those in Bahlton, might all be very close to the country's average per capita income.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 38
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I would go for E
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5134
Location: Singapore
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
89
[0], given: 0
|
I'll take C. It shows that the number of people who live in poverty are actually equal and Bahlton could have a larger population that could swing the average per capita income in their favor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 48
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Pls post ans with explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 595
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
E is the correct answer.
Both claims are consistent if the distribution of wealth in K is uniform and the distribution of wealth in K is not uniform. This is introduced indirectly in E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 803
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
I may be wrong. But I pick B.
It is not sound to relate poverty and per-capita income directly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1957
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
E makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 1134
Location: London, UK
Schools: Tuck'08
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
E was my pick too
I think OA is ok for this one
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 1001
Location: South Korea
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
10
[0], given: 0
|
Kuptala = lower per capita income, rare poverty
Bahlton = higher per capita income, 50% population in poverty
The argument above is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) not relevant
(B) It is true that the term "poverty" is vague here, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that the same criteria of poverty is used for both nations.
(C) Makes sense, but doesn't have to be "the same".
D) not relevant
E) Poverty should be rare if all incomes are close to the average per capita income.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
