City Financial Manager: While the city budget for children’s programs

City Financial Manager thinks that fewer programs for children are necessary as children now make up a markedly smaller percentage of the city's population compared to ten and twenty years ago. Let's go to the options:

A. Without budget cuts, the city will be unable to maintain its current level of services.

City Financial Manager never mentions this. Incorrect.

B. The city’s population has not declined sharply over the past two decades.

children make up a markedly smaller percentage of the city. Therefore, if we negate option B, then also the difference in the number of children to the number of adults will be huge. Incorrect.

C. Children’s programs are an important factor in the decisions of families that consider moving to the city.

Out of scope. Incorrect.

D. There has not been a significant increase in the number of adults living in the city.

Again not related to the question asked. Incorrect.

E. Many of the children’s programs in the city are underutilized by the current population.

If the above statement is false, then the increase in number of children’s programs is not a bad idea. Therefore, the author should assume E in order to give such a statement. Correct.

IMO E.

D. The passage talks about proportion and less kids. and not the under-utilization of the programs. Children might make a lower proportion of the total population, but the absolute number might be higher than the 10-20 years ago. So, if the city saw a large increase in adult population, the number of children is still the same or higher and hence, we still need the programs.

The number of adults could go up drastically and still result in fewer children. Take this example
Few years ago 60/40 percent split with 600/400.
Now, 90/10 percent split with 1800/222

Posted from my mobile device

Hi rahulkashyap,

I will provide you my explanation too. Hope it will be of some help to you.

Argument: Budget for children's program continues to rise. Children make up a smaller percentage of population now than 10 and 20 yrs ago. --> Fewer programs for children are necessary. Expenditures can be reduced.

Possible assumptions: 1. If fewer programs are necessary then the number of children now must not be significantly more than the number of children 10 or 20 years ago.
2. The number of adults must not increase significantly. Suppose, 10 years ago there were 200 children and 800 adults --> % of children = 20%. Now, there are 1000 children and 9000 adults --> % of children = 10%. In this case, % of children is less but can fewer programs be provided? No.

A. Without budget cuts, the city will be unable to maintain its current level of services. - Incorrect - Irrelevant

B. The city’s population has not declined sharply over the past two decades. - Incorrect - We are not sure about the effect of population decline. Population decline may support/may not support the argument.

C. Children’s programs are an important factor in the decisions of families that consider moving to the city. - Incorrect - Effect of this option on the argument cannot be established.

D. There has not been a significant increase in the number of adults living in the city. - Correct

E. Many of the children’s programs in the city are underutilized by the current population. - Incorrect - Irrelevant

Answer: C

E. Many of the children’s programs in the city are underutilized by the current population.
Negate E: Not many of the children's programs in the city are underutilized by the current population --> Some programs are still underutilized. --> Supports the conclusion instead of negating the conclusion.

The number of adults could go up drastically and still result in fewer children. Take this example
Few years ago 60/40 percent split with 600/400.
Now, 90/10 percent split with 1800/222

Posted from my mobile device

Hi Rahul,

I think you did not read my explanation carefully.

Refer: Possible assumptions: 1. If fewer programs are necessary then the number of children now must not be significantly more than the number of children 10 or 20 years ago.

In your case the number of children now are not significantly greater than the number of children 10 or 20 years before. You are looking at one possible assumption and trying to argue against the other possible assumption.

Im not entirely sure what you mean, but what I meant was if I negate D, it doesn't destroy the conclusion. That is, if there is a significant increase in adults, it still is resulting in fewer children and not invalidating the assumption.

Posted from my mobile device

In your case, the numbers you have taken are:
For 10 or 20 yrs ago: 600 adults and 400 children --> 40% children
Now: 1800 adults and 220 children --> 10% children
Here the number of children now (220) is not significantly greater than the number of children 10 or 20 yrs ago (400). This can be one among many possible assumptions. --> Assumption 1

Option D: There has not been a significant increase in the number of adults living in the city.
Negate D: There has been a significant increase in the number of adults living in the city.

Take few numbers to test the negation of D:
10 or 20 yrs ago: 800 adults and 200 children --> 20%children
Now: 9000 adults and 1000 children --> 10% children

Earlier there were 200 children and now there are 1000 children --> Conclusion (i.e. fewer programs are necessary) breaks down. Hence option D is also one of the several possible assumptions. --> Assumption 2

The mistake you are doing: you are considering assumption 1 and arguing that assumption 2 is not valid.

Hope it helps.

Hi,

Although D seems logical but it is still not properly crafted I reckon. In your above explanation you have rightly calculated that with significant increase in number of adults and moderate increase in no. of children the % of children will be less but number could still be larger/bigger. Now, my question is- why are you increasing the number of children in your calculation? The statement says about number of adults only- so keep number of children constant and increase number of adults significantly- now the population will increase but that increase will be solely due to increase in number of adults- hence, still we have lesser % of children over the entire population.

For me a statement like- "the number of children program 10 years ago was sufficient enough" could have been the best assumption for this question because negating this statement would shatter the suggestion/conclusion made by the author.

Please read my cents carefully before negating my statement and also please do give your thoughts.

GMAT Verbal Experts- please give your suggestions too.

Regards
Yash

"Give Kudos Take Kudos- simple isn't it?"-
"I am not done as I have still not won".

hello sir thanks for clarifying the answer ,although i just want to sure myself whether i am right or missing something , as you have mentioned above that the no. of adults should not increase significantly , but my doubt is that ,if say, the no. of children 10 years ago who now became adults then ultimately the no. of adults should rise , isn't it ?
please clarify , i am confused

thanks in advance

Option D says "Significant increase" means noteworthy. So children do become adults after 10 years so it's a common thing. Option D is saying there's no such significant increase in adults living in city.

10 yrs back 100 children are there so after 10 yrs you can expect 100 adults but if you see 1000 adults then that can be count as Significant increase. If we are seeing 1000 adults then obviously children ratio will also increase and fewer programs are not sufficient. Argument will break.

Hope you got your answer..!

yeah thanks , it means if we negate option D then we got to know if no. of adults has raised then obviously the no. of children has increased as well. so more programs will be needed . that's how it is an assumption .

thanks for clarifying

Can anyone tell me what is the problem with option B?

Here is choice B
(B) The city’s population has not declined sharply over the past two decades.

It actually says that the population has not declined sharply. It can mean two things 1) The population has remained constant 2) The population has increased
Now we given in the argument that the percentage of the children has declined over the last 20 years. This choice poses a problem for us. It may so happen over all the number of children has increased still the percentage is low because overall population has increased. If anything B weakens the argument.
Hope it helps

But D doesn't mention that at the same time number of children didn't increase so what if adults significantly increased while children significantly increased as well. I mean D has some logical flaw. It should refers to only increase in adults rather than children then we have to infer that children Percent really shrinked.

Option D is tricky. Whenever you see the words - numbers, percentage or proportion - do the maths.
Fantastic reply! Kudos!