Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
01 May 2022, 23:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
"The average age of the population in our country has been decreasing continuously over the last two decades and is, as a
result, the lowest ever. The cities of religious importance are known for attracting the old. Thus, people involved in the
tourism industry in such locations must look for alternate sources of income before they are bereaved by the demographic trend."
The argument claims that because average age of population has been decreasing and cities of religious importance are known for attracting the old population, people involved in tourism industry in such locations must look for alternate source of income before they are bereaved by the demographic trend. Stated in this way, argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The argument is based on various unwarranted assumptions for which there are no clear evidences. Thus, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument mentions that average age is decreasing but what is the exact decrease? Is the decrease viable enough for people involved in tourism industry in cities of religious importance to even think about alternate source of income? For example, let's say average age decreased from 40 to 38 in last two decades (one year decrease in each decade) . This decrease is not significant enough for making a huge difference in people visiting cities of religious importance. Therefore, without clarity on magnitude of change and without any evidence answering above mentioned questions, conclusion is merely a wishful claim.
Second, the argument assumes that only old people are attracted to cities of religious importance. However, this is not the case. For example, In india more younger than older population visit cities of religious importance. The conclusion would have been more clear if it had mentioned why only old population is attracted towards cities of religious importance and why younger population is not likely to visit these cities.
Finally, conclusion is based on merely data on the basis of averages. It did not consider the total numbers with respect to population, For example, let us assume that average decrease was significant but total old age population is about 50% of total population. In this case, it would be foolish for people to think about alternate source of income as they have a very large market to cater. Although, decrease in population can effect tourism industry but this effect would be minimum and is nothing compared to what can be earned with such large market size.
In summary, the argument is flawed and implausible. The argument would have been considerably strengthened if it had clearly mentioned the magnitude of average decrease in age, data related to total population and reason why younger population is less likely to visit cities of religious importance. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
result, the lowest ever. The cities of religious importance are known for attracting the old. Thus, people involved in the
tourism industry in such locations must look for alternate sources of income before they are bereaved by the demographic trend."
The argument claims that because average age of population has been decreasing and cities of religious importance are known for attracting the old population, people involved in tourism industry in such locations must look for alternate source of income before they are bereaved by the demographic trend. Stated in this way, argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The argument is based on various unwarranted assumptions for which there are no clear evidences. Thus, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument mentions that average age is decreasing but what is the exact decrease? Is the decrease viable enough for people involved in tourism industry in cities of religious importance to even think about alternate source of income? For example, let's say average age decreased from 40 to 38 in last two decades (one year decrease in each decade) . This decrease is not significant enough for making a huge difference in people visiting cities of religious importance. Therefore, without clarity on magnitude of change and without any evidence answering above mentioned questions, conclusion is merely a wishful claim.
Second, the argument assumes that only old people are attracted to cities of religious importance. However, this is not the case. For example, In india more younger than older population visit cities of religious importance. The conclusion would have been more clear if it had mentioned why only old population is attracted towards cities of religious importance and why younger population is not likely to visit these cities.
Finally, conclusion is based on merely data on the basis of averages. It did not consider the total numbers with respect to population, For example, let us assume that average decrease was significant but total old age population is about 50% of total population. In this case, it would be foolish for people to think about alternate source of income as they have a very large market to cater. Although, decrease in population can effect tourism industry but this effect would be minimum and is nothing compared to what can be earned with such large market size.
In summary, the argument is flawed and implausible. The argument would have been considerably strengthened if it had clearly mentioned the magnitude of average decrease in age, data related to total population and reason why younger population is less likely to visit cities of religious importance. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
02 May 2022, 06:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
Respost your essay according to the AWA subforum rules, follow the link below.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.html
This post is archived.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.html
This post is archived.
Ravin25
"The average age of the population in our country has been decreasing continuously over the last two decades and is, as a
result, the lowest ever. The cities of religious importance are known for attracting the old. Thus, people involved in the
tourism industry in such locations must look for alternate sources of income before they are bereaved by the demographic trend."
The argument claims that because average age of population has been decreasing and cities of religious importance are known for attracting the old population, people involved in tourism industry in such locations must look for alternate source of income before they are bereaved by the demographic trend. Stated in this way, argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The argument is based on various unwarranted assumptions for which there are no clear evidences. Thus, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument mentions that average age is decreasing but what is the exact decrease? Is the decrease viable enough for people involved in tourism industry in cities of religious importance to even think about alternate source of income? For example, let's say average age decreased from 40 to 38 in last two decades (one year decrease in each decade) . This decrease is not significant enough for making a huge difference in people visiting cities of religious importance. Therefore, without clarity on magnitude of change and without any evidence answering above mentioned questions, conclusion is merely a wishful claim.
Second, the argument assumes that only old people are attracted to cities of religious importance. However, this is not the case. For example, In india more younger than older population visit cities of religious importance. The conclusion would have been more clear if it had mentioned why only old population is attracted towards cities of religious importance and why younger population is not likely to visit these cities.
Finally, conclusion is based on merely data on the basis of averages. It did not consider the total numbers with respect to population, For example, let us assume that average decrease was significant but total old age population is about 50% of total population. In this case, it would be foolish for people to think about alternate source of income as they have a very large market to cater. Although, decrease in population can effect tourism industry but this effect would be minimum and is nothing compared to what can be earned with such large market size.
In summary, the argument is flawed and implausible. The argument would have been considerably strengthened if it had clearly mentioned the magnitude of average decrease in age, data related to total population and reason why younger population is less likely to visit cities of religious importance. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
result, the lowest ever. The cities of religious importance are known for attracting the old. Thus, people involved in the
tourism industry in such locations must look for alternate sources of income before they are bereaved by the demographic trend."
The argument claims that because average age of population has been decreasing and cities of religious importance are known for attracting the old population, people involved in tourism industry in such locations must look for alternate source of income before they are bereaved by the demographic trend. Stated in this way, argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The argument is based on various unwarranted assumptions for which there are no clear evidences. Thus, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument mentions that average age is decreasing but what is the exact decrease? Is the decrease viable enough for people involved in tourism industry in cities of religious importance to even think about alternate source of income? For example, let's say average age decreased from 40 to 38 in last two decades (one year decrease in each decade) . This decrease is not significant enough for making a huge difference in people visiting cities of religious importance. Therefore, without clarity on magnitude of change and without any evidence answering above mentioned questions, conclusion is merely a wishful claim.
Second, the argument assumes that only old people are attracted to cities of religious importance. However, this is not the case. For example, In india more younger than older population visit cities of religious importance. The conclusion would have been more clear if it had mentioned why only old population is attracted towards cities of religious importance and why younger population is not likely to visit these cities.
Finally, conclusion is based on merely data on the basis of averages. It did not consider the total numbers with respect to population, For example, let us assume that average decrease was significant but total old age population is about 50% of total population. In this case, it would be foolish for people to think about alternate source of income as they have a very large market to cater. Although, decrease in population can effect tourism industry but this effect would be minimum and is nothing compared to what can be earned with such large market size.
In summary, the argument is flawed and implausible. The argument would have been considerably strengthened if it had clearly mentioned the magnitude of average decrease in age, data related to total population and reason why younger population is less likely to visit cities of religious importance. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderators:
