|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 374
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the [#permalink]
 06 Aug 2005, 19:32
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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 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 occupations than will be working in low-paying service occupations.
(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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1745
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR - Low paying vs. High paying jobs [#permalink]
06 Aug 2005, 20:16
(A) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2004
Posts: 491
Location: Chicago
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR - Low paying vs. High paying jobs [#permalink]
07 Aug 2005, 05:22
IMO the answer is D, the contradiction can only be explained that way. People who are employed in low paying service jobs in 1982 will still count under people employed in low paying service jobs in 1995, but will now have their employment under high paying service job..hence enabling high paying service to increase its share of employment.
_________________
Fear Mediocrity, Respect Ignorance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 201
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
No, it's A.
There's no contradiction, it is just a difference between absolute and relative increases.
Suppose there were 5 workers at the start, 3 in low-paying jobs, 1 in high-paying jobs, 1 in another job.
Then at the end there were 10 workers, 6 in low-paying jobs, 3 in high-paying jobs, 1 in another job.
The greatest absolute increase is for the low-paying jobs up 3, but the % is the same (60%)
The greatest relative increase is for high-paying jobs. 3/1 > 6/3 > 1/1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 287
Location: CA, USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
agree with A and richardj reasoning
In his example, the high paying job's share of all employment
increased from 20% to 30%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 May 2005
Posts: 374
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
OA is A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
