NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 12:36 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 12:36
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
SudiptoGmat
Manager
Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 87
Own Kudos [?]: 2088 [267]
Given Kudos: 25
Location: India
Send PM
Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 13 Jan 2020, 05:28
13
Kudos
253
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

34% (02:26) correct 66% (02:29) wrong based on 3850 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
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.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
A

Originally posted by SudiptoGmat on 18 Jan 2010, 09:20.
Last edited by Bunuel on 13 Jan 2020, 05:28, edited 5 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
G
GMATPill
SVP
SVP
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2261
Own Kudos [?]: 3670 [29]
Given Kudos: 8
Location: New York, NY
Send PM
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre [#permalink] New post   10 Sep 2012, 09:02
25
Kudos
4
Bookmarks
You'll need to visualize your answer for this one.
You can identify this question as the same as an "inference" question - some conclusion is stated and we need information in the passage to support it.

Think of the pie to get this one.

"Low" will NOT increase its share of total employment. So let's say that it's share of the pie stays the same, but the overall pie gets bigger.

So, "Low" might have 15% market share. And in 1995, it STILL has 15%...though the overall pie got bigger.

"High" WILL increase its share of total employment. It can either have more or less than the 15% market share that "Low" has.

1) If <15%, let's say 5%. If 5% and "High" increased to 8%, that gain CAN be less than the gain that LOW experiences. While LOW's % market share stays the same, there is an increase in the overall pie and so LOW will increase. HIGH staying at 5% will also increase but it will increase a very small amount. Its share % can increase to 8%, and the total quantity increased can still be smaller than LOW's increase. See example below.

2) If >15%, let's say 25%. If 25% and "High" increased to 35%, that gain is going to be BIGGER than LOW's gain....conflicts with information in the passage


With Numbers:

Assume Total Employment: 100 ---> 200
1982: LOW 15, HIGH 5.
LOW (15/100 = 15%); HIGH (5/100 = 5%)

1995: LOW 30, HIGH 16
LOW (30/200 = 15%); HIGH (16/200 = 8%)

Here, LOW's % stayed the same, but HIGH's % increased. This is consistent with information provided.
But now, LOW's overall increase was 15 (30-15) while HIGH's increase was only 11 (16-5)

LOW must have started off at a higher base.
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14816
Own Kudos [?]: 64880 [28]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre [#permalink] New post   27 Mar 2019, 22:47
12
Kudos
16
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
SudiptoGmat wrote:
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.

"Number of people employed" will be in various categories: LowS jobs, HighS jobs, LowM jobs, HighM jobs etc
Our concern is the service sector's low (LowS) and high (HighS) paying categories.

LowS will see an increase in the number of people employed but its share in overall employment will not increase. This means the overall employment number must have increased in 1995.

Say in 1982, total people employed was 100 (No. of LowS = L, No. of HighS = H)
Say in 1995, total people employed doubles and becomes 200

To retain their share in the total numbers, both LowS and HighS must have doubled too and become 2L and 2H.
LowS's share did not increase so it did not become more than 2L. Max it became 2L
HighS's share actually increased so it became more than 2H, say it became 2.1H or 3H etc.

Now note that the increase of L in LowS is maximum. So L > 1.1H or 2H etc
Hence in 1982, the number of people employed in LowS jobs were higher than number of people employed in HighS jobs.
Hence (A) is correct.

As for (B), it is not correct. Assume L = 50 and H = 10 (LowS and HighS numbers of 1982)
The numbers becomes 2L = 100 and 3H = 30 in 1995.
All conditions are satisfied but HighS is not greater than LowS in 1995.

(C) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982.
Not necessary. Share of HighS has increased. If share of LowS remains the same, non service occupations may account for lower share of total employment.

(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.
Not necessary. We don't know if new people joined HighS or people shifted from LowS.

(E) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995.
No. The share of LowS does not increase. So its rate of growth is not higher than growth of overall rate of employment.

Answer (A)­
General Discussion
User avatar
Marco83
Intern
Intern
Joined: 08 Nov 2009
Posts: 25
Own Kudos [?]: 115 [9]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre [#permalink] New post   18 Jan 2010, 12:23
8
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
The question asks for the statement that CAN be supported by the passage.

Note that "greatest increase" means largest in absolute number, not largest percentage increase. We also know that the share of employees in low-paying service jobs will not increase, while the share of the high-paying service employees will rise.

A) If in 1982 there were a total of 100M emplyees and 50M worked in low-paying service jobs and 1M in high-paying service jobs, while in 1995 there were 200M employees and 100M worked in low-paying service jobs and 10M in high-paying service jobs, the absolute increase in low-paying service employees would be 100M abeit with the same share of the total epmloyees, while the absolute increase in high-paying service jobs would be only 9M, but with a tenfold increase in the share of the total eployees. If the number of low-paying workers in 1982 were lower than the number of high-paying workers, then an increase in the total share in the latter would lead to an increase in absolute terms larger than the one attributable to low-paying jobs. Right answer.

B) If it were true, it would contraddict the passage. Wrong answer.

C) Nothing is said about nonservice occupations. Wrong answer.

D) Nothing is said about transfers between groups. Wrong answer.

E) Since low-paying occupations will maintain their share, the rate of growth must be the same as the one of the rate of employment. Wrong answer.


My answer is A
User avatar
paranoidvik
Intern
Intern
Joined: 17 Jul 2013
Posts: 19
Own Kudos [?]: 32 [4]
Given Kudos: 183
Location: India
WE:Information Technology (Health Care)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre [#permalink] New post   18 May 2014, 11:48
2
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
I think I went bald on this one :D

Could get this one after a fair bit of thought
C, D, and E are out straight away for we don't have enough info to support those choices

the race is between A and B and I chose B initially, the correct answer seems to be A

My reasoning:

1982: 100 employees, low paying = 25, high paying = 50, others = 25 (note: it is not mentioned that high paying and low paying are the only categories)
so share of low paying = 25 / 100 = 25%
1995: 200 employees, so low paying must be = 50 in order to maintain the 25% share (50/200)
Now this would mean that the absolute increase in low paying is 50 - 25 = 25 and it is given that no other category had such an absolute increase.
So, the absolute increase in high paying would be <25 ==> in 1995 the high paying would be between 50 and 74, let it be max = 74. Now if you look at the other category it has to increase substantially above absolute increase of 25 in order for the sum to be 200
ie. 50 + 74 + 76 but that increase would contradict the information provided. Hence B is wrong

Why option A?

1982: 100 employees, low paying = 50, high paying = 25, others = 25, share of low paying = 50 %
1995: 200 employees, low paying = 100, high paying = 50, others = 50, share of low paying = 50%

Absolute increase in low paying from 1982 to 1995 = 100 - 50 = 50
The other categories must have absolute increase of less than 50. This is only true if in 1982 low paying employees > no of high paying employees.

Try it with other set of numbers while practicing this one. Hope it helps!
avatar
B
Poorvasha
Manager
Manager
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 55
Own Kudos [?]: 101 [2]
Given Kudos: 8
Send PM
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre [#permalink] New post   14 Nov 2017, 16:35
2
Kudos
Hi mikemcgarry

Below is my interpretation of the problem:

1982 Low= 40, High= 34, Others=26 .
Percentage of low is 40% and of high is %34.
1995- Low 80, High 70, Others 50. total 200. Percentage of low = 40% (constant). % of high 35% (higher).
So, in 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations..
Whereas in 1995, number of high is less than the number of low ones.
Basis this I am obtaining A.

Can you please help me identify the flaw in my reasoning ?

Thanks :)
User avatar
G
mikemcgarry
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4448
Own Kudos [?]: 28569 [14]
Given Kudos: 130
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre [#permalink] New post   17 Nov 2017, 07:15
13
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Poorvasha wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry

Below is my interpretation of the problem:

1982 Low= 40, High= 34, Others=26 .
Percentage of low is 40% and of high is %34.
1995- Low 80, High 70, Others 50. total 200. Percentage of low = 40% (constant). % of high 35% (higher).
So, in 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations..
Whereas in 1995, number of high is less than the number of low ones.
Basis this I am obtaining A.

Can you please help me identify the flaw in my reasoning ?

Thanks :)

Dear Poorvasha,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, this is a deeply flawed question. In trying to create a tricky must-be-true questions, the author created a question with more possibilities that he himself was able to imagine. In fact, NOTHING must be true, given this scenario, and a few of the answers could be true. This is a completely train wreck of a question and should be ignored.

Don't automatically assume that, simply because some company says "this is a high quality question," that it actually is. Many many GMAT verbal practice questions are pure trash. You have to be very discerning about the source of the question. Read reviews and testimonials. Caveat emptor.

Here's a high quality practice question:
FANTOD programming

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
B
mview
Intern
Intern
Joined: 03 Sep 2018
Posts: 18
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [3]
Given Kudos: 47
Send PM
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre [#permalink] New post   19 Oct 2019, 12:51
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Definitions:
\(L\): Number of Low Paying Jobs in 1982
\(H\): Number of High Paying Jobs in 1982
\(a\): gain of low-paying jobs such that \(a L\) is the number of low paying jobs in 1995
\(b\): gain of high-paying jobs such that \(b H\) is the number of high paying jobs in 1995
\(T\): total number of jobs in 1982.

Applying the conditions:
1) Since Low paying jobs ".. will not increase its share of total employment," the total number of employees must also increase by at least \(a\) to become \(aT\)

2) The text says that "category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share"
In other words \(bH/aT > H/T\), hence \(b>a\)

3)Also, since "the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations.", the number of employees increases more for low-paying jobs than for high-paying jobs: \(aL-L>bH-H\)
Rearranging \(L/H > (b-1)/(a-1)\).
Solving:
Combining 2 and 3: \(b>a\) or \(b-1>a-1\) or \((b-1)/(a-1) > 1\), one can conclude that \(L/H > 1\).
Or \(L > H\), which is exactly answer choice A.
User avatar
S
davidbeckham
Stanford School Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2019
Posts: 113
Own Kudos [?]: 56 [0]
Given Kudos: 181
Location: India
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre [#permalink] New post   28 Jul 2020, 09:56
Hi GMATNinja, please could explain the difference between A and B?
User avatar
L
CrackverbalGMAT
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Posts: 4946
Own Kudos [?]: 7624 [0]
Given Kudos: 215
Location: India
Send PM
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre [#permalink] New post   31 Jul 2020, 08:52
Top Contributor
davidbeckham wrote:
Hi GMATNinja, please could explain the difference between A and B?


Hi

Let me try to address your query.

Let us denote number high paying service jobs by H and low paying service jobs as L. Let us also denote their corresponding years within parentheses. So H (1995) would mean number of high paying service jobs in the year 1995.

The stimulus tells us that L (1995) - L (1982) will be the largest among all categories of jobs, hence also including H.
It also tells us that L (1995) will form the same proportion of total jobs in 1995 as L (1982) did in 1982.
Finally, we are told that H (1995) as a proportion of total jobs in 1995 will be greater than H (1982) as a proportion of total jobs in 1982.

Now let us come to the answer options (A) and (B).

(A) states L (1982) > H (1982). This is clearly true, since L has increased the maximum without improving its share of total jobs, but as a proportion of itself, H should have increased by more than L (since only then it can increase its own share of total jobs as stated in the stimulus).
(B) states H (1995) > L (1995). This is incorrect - simple numerical values can be plugged in for L, H to verify this.

Hope this helps.
User avatar
G
Kratosgmat
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 Sep 2022
Posts: 86
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 40
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Other
GRE 1: Q164 V158
Send PM
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre [#permalink] New post   13 Nov 2023, 17:24
note: argument says share of L doesn't increase which means it could have stayed same or reduced

1. if share stayed same
share of L = L/H+L
now,

if ratio was same, change in L will be equal to change in (H+L)

that is if L increased by 20%, (H+L) also increased 20% which means H must also increase by 20%

L/H+L = 1.2L/1.2H+1.2L=1.2L/1.2(H+L)=L/H+L

now increase in L is the highest in 1995
so
02L>0.2H
or L>H

but note in this case share of H in 1995 would be

1.2H/1.2(H+L)=H/H+L= share in 1982, which is against our argument

which means share of L must have reduced and cannot be the same

2. If share of L reduced,

initially in 1982 share of L = L/H+L
similarly share of H = H/H+L

finally in 1995
share of L = 1.2 L/1.3H+1.2L - share of L reduce even though number inc by 20 percent
similarly share of H = 1.3H/1.3H+1.2L share of H increases
.2L>0.3H or L>1.5H

Hence option A
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre [#permalink]
13 Nov 2023, 17:24
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions