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

It is currently 19 Sep 2014, 00:32

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 662
Location: London
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the [#permalink] New post 05 Apr 2006, 06:18
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 129
Location: New York, NY
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 05 Apr 2006, 07:15
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?
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1136
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 05 Apr 2006, 09:15
I'm going with E.

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
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 146
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 05 Apr 2006, 09:51
Another one for A.

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 ’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.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 502
Location: Europe
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 05 Apr 2006, 19:25
One more for 'A'.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 36
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 05 Apr 2006, 19:59
A for me.

Here's a little example...

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.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2005
Posts: 105
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2006, 03:58
akiboshi wrote:
A for me.

Here's a little example...

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.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Posts: 1408
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2006, 04:21
I go for A
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2006, 05:12
A....
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 662
Location: London
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2006, 06:46
The OA is A, but I stil lam not able to understand why though.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 128
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2006, 07:12
I thought E
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 146
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2006, 15:47
remgeo wrote:
The OA is A, but I stil lam not able to understand why though.


What is the source? Do you have an explanation that came with the answer?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 482
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2006, 18:42
This question is based on % increase vs actual increase.

Suppose in 1982 total number of people employed = 100

LP = 80 --. 80%

HP = 20 --- 20%

In 1995, Total number of people employed = 220

LP = 176, total % = 80

HP = 45.

Here actaul number of LP jobs has increased, but % remain same, where as for HP actual number is less but % is more

Hence A
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 158
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2006, 19:09
gmat_crack wrote:
This question is based on % increase vs actual increase.

Suppose in 1982 total number of people employed = 100

LP = 80 --. 80%

HP = 20 --- 20%

In 1995, Total number of people employed = 220

LP = 176, total % = 80

HP = 45.

Here actaul number of LP jobs has increased, but % remain same, where as for HP actual number is less but % is more

How will HP be 45 ..it will be 44..and thus the %age of HP also remains same.
I still donot understand the OA.Please explain

Hence A
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 662
Location: London
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
 [#permalink] New post 07 Apr 2006, 01:15
gmat_crack wrote:
This question is based on % increase vs actual increase.

Suppose in 1982 total number of people employed = 100

LP = 80 --. 80%

HP = 20 --- 20%

In 1995, Total number of people employed = 220

LP = 176, total % = 80

HP = 45.

Here actaul number of LP jobs has increased, but % remain same, where as for HP actual number is less but % is more

Hence A


But why did you assume a higher percent for the low paying jobs?
Even if figures were LP = 20%, HP= 80%, all these could happen, isnt it.

I do not have the OE for this question. I just know that the OA is A.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 36
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 07 Apr 2006, 01:34
remgeo wrote:
gmat_crack wrote:
This question is based on % increase vs actual increase.

Suppose in 1982 total number of people employed = 100

LP = 80 --. 80%

HP = 20 --- 20%

In 1995, Total number of people employed = 220

LP = 176, total % = 80

HP = 45.

Here actaul number of LP jobs has increased, but % remain same, where as for HP actual number is less but % is more

Hence A


But why did you assume a higher percent for the low paying jobs?
Even if figures were LP = 20%, HP= 80%, all these could happen, isnt it.

I do not have the OE for this question. I just know that the OA is A.


Because there is no way, given the information provided by the passage, for the HP to be greater in percentage than the LP and still get the results in the passage. Think about it:

Number of workers = 100

If LP = 20% of 100 = 20 workers
and HP = 80% of 100 = 80 workers

How would LP's % not go up if they had the largest increase in emploment?

LP increases by 20 workers and HP increases by 10 workers (remember, HP has to have an increase in order to gain some share).

After:
LP = 40 workers = 40/130 = ~30%
HP = 90 workers = 90/130 = ~70%

As you can see, if we follow the passage as assume LP greater than HP, the conditions would not hold since LP gained share when it should have either stayed the same or loss share.
  [#permalink] 07 Apr 2006, 01:34
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the ajit257 7 24 Nov 2010, 15:03
Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the nakib77 9 02 Nov 2005, 13:09
Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the rahuluec 3 16 Oct 2005, 07:34
Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the AJB77 5 06 Aug 2005, 18:32
Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the WinWinMBA 7 25 Apr 2005, 16:10
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.