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

 It is currently 29 May 2016, 21:34

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2005, 03:39
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
VP
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1488
Location: Germany
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 212 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2005, 03:54
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: 5062
Location: Singapore
Followers: 28

Kudos [?]: 267 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2005, 04:05
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.
VP
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1218
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 393 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2005, 01:43
Hello, the OA is E.

anybody tell me why?

thanks
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 238
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2005, 01:54
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: 904
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2005, 07:51
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.
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Income Tax 4 21 Mar 2011, 05:12
Fact1: Over the past eight years , cuts in federal income 6 19 Aug 2010, 23:03
Consumer income reports produced by the government 8 27 Jan 2008, 16:35
Consumer income reports produced by the government 6 18 Jan 2007, 20:38
The percentage of households with an annual income of more 0 26 Nov 2006, 18:12
Display posts from previous: Sort by