Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the [#permalink]
05 Apr 2006, 06:18
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 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.
I didnt understand how they arrived at the OA. Can you please explain your answers.
I'm stuck between A & B, although I don't think either of them are correct. C,D and E are definitely either not true, or out of scope. If forced, I would go with A. Anybody else have any ideas on this one?
A - No way of knowing. We only know that that the increase in the number of low-paying service jobs is the maximum when compared to other jobs.
B - No way of knowing. We only know that that the increase in the number of low-paying service jobs is the maximum when compared to other jobs.
C - Cannot be calculated.
D - Out of scope
E - Keep because of POE
Tried to come up with a clear explanation, but all I could do was to negate the other choices... A was left...
It cannot be E, because what if the following scenario is considered:
Out of total 1000 ppl employed in â€™82, 500 ppl were in LP service occupations. This sector increased by 100 ppl, i.e. a rate of growth of 20%. But at the same time, the overall total # of ppl employed grew to 1300, i.e. a rate of growth of 30%. Out of this increase of 300 ppl, 100 ppl came from the LP service occupations, but the remaining 200 ppl could have come from 10 other sectors, i.e. 20 ppl from ea sector, and thus still being consistent with the claim that the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations. That eliminates choice E.
Lets say there are 100 jobs in this economy. Let us allocate it at 90 low-salary and 10 High-salary.
If we increase the low-salary jobs by 5, it would end up at 95 If we increase the high-salary jobs by 4, it would end up at 14
Before the increased jobs: High salary: 10% of economy Low-salary: 90% of economy
After change: High Salary: 14/109 = Approx. 12.8% Low Salary: 95/109 = Approx. 87%
Increased High salary share; Decreased Low Salary share.
Which is why I choose A.
In your example you assume that in 1982 there were more low paying jobs, however we are not told this. What if the number of low paying jobs was less than the high paying jobs? then the numbers change direction.
In this question my argument is that more people were hired for low paying jobs but at the same time moved on to high paying jobs. Hence, no increase to the total employment rate for low paying jobs but there was an increase in high paying jobs.
So I go for D though A sounds plausible I need further explantion.
http://blog.davidbbaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/12249800_10153820891439090_8007573611012789132_n.jpg When you think about an MBA program, usually the last thing you think of is professional collegiate sport. (Yes American’s I’m going...