School Administrator: The number of fourteen year olds in Britain who

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

For this “inference” question, you need to pick the one answer that must be true based upon the findings of the school administrator. The trick is to realize that there is only one way that the total number of gifted 14 year olds has gone up – if the total number of 14 years has gone up! The definition of “gifted” students is the key to realizing this: It is a fixed percentage of the total population. The gifted population is always 10% of the total, so if the gifted population has gone up then the total must have gone up.

Therefore, (C) must be true based upon the school administrator’s findings.

(A) must be false – if the number of gifted students has increased, then the number who are not gifted must have also increased.

For (B) and (E), you have no idea whether preparation for the MSSEE or British education in general have improved.

And for (D) you are not given any information about how the population of “gifted” fourteen year olds relates to the total population.

Answer is (C).

I guess the OA should be C)

As out of 100x, 10x students score more than 90x students, if 10x has increased, then 100x has to increase.

School Administrator: The number of fourteen year olds in Britain who are considered “gifted” – that is who score higher than 90% of their peers on the mandatory secondary school entrance exam (MSEEE) – has increased steadily over the past decade.

If the school administrator’s findings are correct, which of the following can be concluded on the basis of those findings?



Basically the sentence is: "The number of 14 yr olds scoring > 90% has increased over past decade, because...." [we have to find an answer that completes this sentence]


A)There has been at least some improvement in British education over the past decade.

B)The number of British fourteen year olds who are not considered gifted has decreased over the past decade.

C)The number of British fourteen year olds taking the MSEEE has increased over the past decade.

D)Preparation for the MSEEE has improved in British schools over the past decade.

E)The percentage of British fourteen year olds who are considered gifted has increased as a percentage of the total population.

Only C completes the sentence well: "The number of 14 yr olds scoring > 90% has increased over past decade, because the number of British fourteen year olds taking the MSEEE has increased over the past decade"

Hence ANSWER: C

actually even "c" may not be right ans....
what if the no of 14 year olds taking exam also not increasing.....it is possible....say every year 1000 took test all these years.... first year 100 , second 150, third 200 and so on scored more than 90 %......
this counters "c"......

Hi Semwal,

According to me, the argument talks about the score- which is higher than 90% of the peers.
It seems you are considering the number of the fourteen years old who scored more than 90% . (both are two different aspects)

Correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks.

I vote C too.

Only serious contenders for the answer are B and C. All others are irrelevant.
Of that, B can be easily disproved. The given statement says that the total number of 14 year olds in 90th percentile has increased. Doesnt mean that those not in the gifted group has decreased. Say initially there were 100 students and now there are 1000, both gifted and non-gifted would increase.

So only C is left.

Give kudos if you like.

if C can be concluded then E alsocan be concluded, just as both MUST not be concluded. Both are possible conclusion but not inevitable.
WHY?
IN E - an increase in gifted proportion can be caused by increasing number of gifted kids if the number of ungifted did not increase more than the increase in the number of gifted.

IN C - the number of kids taking taking the test can be increased by increasing number of gifted kids taking the test but not necessarily since the number of gifted can increase while the number of ungifted reduces.
So in fact C can be concluded if the number of ungifted did not reduce more than the increase in the number of gifted.

So how is C the answer please?
Am I missing something?

The stimulus talks about Number, not increase in percentage of students .....

When the stimulus talks about number we must consider it in numeric terms only !!!


Now consider there are 2 broad compartments , Group A and Group B, and year after year we find that number of elements in Group A is increasing (considering no change in Group B) then the situation can be described in numeric terms as -

Initially Total Elements = Elements in group A + Elements in group B

After X years ,

Increased no of Total Elements = Increased no of Elements in group A + Elements in group B

So, You see if there is an increase in elements of one group ( Keeping elements of the other group same) there is an increase in total population of the entire population/elements.

The same concept is tested here, just replace Group A with students score more than 90%.

The only option that remains is option (C)

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja

Are we not assuming that all the students in peer group are also 14 years old. I think without that assumption it is hard to arrive at the right answer choice.

I am not sure I understand your query.

School Administrator: The number of fourteen year olds in Britain who are considered “gifted” – that is who score higher than 90% of their peers on the mandatory secondary school entrance exam (MSEEE) – has increased steadily over the past decade.

We are talking about the fourteen year olds only. So the entire set is of only 14 year olds. There is no assumption here.

VeritasKarishma

Ma'am you understood correctly what I meant. How do we know that entire group is 14 years old. Prompt mentions Number of 14 years old and peer group. Can peer group not be, for example, a mix of 13,14 and 15 year old.

"Peer group" is the group of people who are equal in certain characteristics - here it is age. When you talk about the group of 14 year olds - those who got more than 90% of their peers and their peers, both are within the group of 14 year olds only.

VeritasKarishma

My understanding is below.

"Peer group" is the group of people who are equal in certain characteristics - here all are taking MSEEE.

Please let me know the words that you referred in the prompt to ascertain peer group is of same age.

You are overthinking it.

We are talking about the set of 14 year olds. Out of that set, those who are considered "gifted" is a sub set. The peers of these "gifted 14 year olds" will be the rest of the 14 year olds. The comparison is among the fourteen year olds only.

School Administrator: The number of fourteen year olds in Britain who are considered “gifted” – that is who score higher than 90% of their peers on the mandatory secondary school entrance exam (MSEEE) – has increased steadily over the past decade.

If the school administrator’s findings are correct, which of the following can be concluded on the basis of those findings?

This is an inference question so best to stick with the information provided. Just to clear any misunderstandings - there is no information provided about total population size so will assume no change.
Next stimulus states
>90% (gifted) <90% (Not gifted)
10 yrs ago x y
Now a b

Assuming a+b = x+y
Given a>x Implies y>b

With word play only B and C is up for elimination - "can be concluded" rather than "must be true"

(B) The number of British fourteen year olds who are not considered gifted has decreased over the past decade. y>b
yes correct

(C) The number of British fourteen year olds taking the MSEEE has increased over the past decade. (not stated - outside assumption) -

Sticking to specifics is not working out in all cases?

Happy to learn about alternative explanations.

DebbieChats, You have remarkably removed the irrelevant options.
However, assuming there is NO information provided about total population size ---so will assume----> no change is an inference mistake.

Given:

The # of gifted ones has increased steadily over the past decade.
Meaning - if the prior count was 100x, now it is MORE THAN 100x

Let's clear out why B is wrong:
(B) The number of British fourteen-year-olds who are NOT considered gifted has decreased over the past decade.

Before:

Total = 1000
Gifted = 600 | NotGifted = 400


We will ONLY increase the gifted count in 2 different possible scenarios:

After( 1st possible scenario) :

Total = 900
Gifted = 700 | NotGifted = 200 - NotGifted decreased


After( 2nd possible scenario) :

Total = 1200
Gifted = 700 | NotGifted = 500 - NotGifted increased

The count of NotGifted is NOT necessarily either higher or lower.
It's Dicey --------> Thus, OUT!

(C) The number of British fourteen year olds taking the MSEEE has increased over the past decade.

C needs to be TRUE because the gifted count is a subset of The number of British fourteen-year-olds taking the MSEEE count.
Look at this way:

In 2010,

The number of aspirants taking the GMAT exam = 150
The number of students who scored above 700 in GMAT = 150 - 150 students are part of 700-Club


Now, in 2015,

The number of aspirants taking the GMAT exam = Y1
The number of students in 700 club = 200 - 200 students are part of 700-Club
Y1 MUST be >= 150 (it should be >= 200, but we are comparing witht the initial count)
because the The number of students in 700 club is a subset of The number of aspirants taking the GMAT exam.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.