|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1255
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
Per-capita income last year was $25000. Per-capita income is [#permalink]
 16 Feb 2005, 03:39
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Per-capita income last year was $25000. Per-capita income is calculated by dividing total aggregate cash income by the total population. Real median income for families headed by a female, with no husband present, was $29000. Therefore, women wage-earners earned more than the national average.
Which of the following would, if true, weaken the above conclusion?
(A)Per-capita income is calculated in real terms
(B)In 99 percent of the cases, families headed by a female included no other wage-earner.
(C) Average income is not significantly different from median income
(D) The overall average and per-capita income were the same
(E)Only a small proportion of the total wage earners are women family heads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1547
Location: Germany
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 0
|
B) !
because it doesnt include any other wage-earners the denominator (population) is unproportional smaller than the numerator (wages)
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5134
Location: Singapore
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
89
[0], given: 0
|
Diagramming:
(2)p:Last year: per capita income = 25000
(1)p:Per capita income = total aggregate cash income/ total population
(3)p:median income for families headed by female=29000
(4)c:women wage earners earned more than nationl average
The conclusion is "women wage earners earned more than the national average"
We need an answer that doesn't support this conclusion.
(B) would be good. It doesn't give other wage earners as a measure against women wage earners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2005
Posts: 648
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
I agree with Christoph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 993
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
I will go with (E).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Oct 2004
Posts: 267
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
B for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1255
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
Hello, the OA is E.
anybody tell me why?
thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 259
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
E seemed good me at first sight .
But some explanations seem tuf for me to understand.
Does - "Per-capita income is calculated by dividing total aggregate cash income by the total population." - apply to the family level or at a country level. I would have thought the latter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 993
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
8
[0], given: 0
|
I will try to explain as anandnk expalins:
Say Total number of wage earners (in the nation) = 10000
Per capita income = 25000
Total Earning = 10000 * 25000 = 2.5 * 10^8 = 25 * 10^7
Now if I say (E) is true i.e. there are small number (proportion) of female wage earners like i say 1000.
Total Earning by Woman = 1000 * 29000 = 2.9 * 10^7
Rest of National Earning = 25 - 2.9 = 22.1 * 10^7
which is clearly much more than what wage earner women earned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
