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.

It appears that you are browsing the GMAT Club forum unregistered!

Signing up is free, quick, and confidential.
Join other 500,000 members and get the full benefits of GMAT Club

Registration gives you:

Tests

Take 11 tests and quizzes from GMAT Club and leading GMAT prep companies such as Manhattan GMAT,
Knewton, and others. All are free for GMAT Club members.

Applicant Stats

View detailed applicant stats such as GPA, GMAT score, work experience, location, application
status, and more

Books/Downloads

Download thousands of study notes,
question collections, GMAT Club’s
Grammar and Math books.
All are free!

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:

50% (02:12) correct
50% (01:41) wrong based on 2 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

I found this one challenging... let me know which answer you'd pick and why!

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 for the 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 occ. than will be working in low-paying service occ.
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 go with A. Only when the number of ppl already in low paying service jobs are higher theri percentage increase may not be as high as for ppl in services which are high paying and where number of ppl initially was low. let me know the right answer.
cheers
neeraj

ngulati:
You seem to have confused the data - everything is vice versa - the low paid category must be having less employed than the high-paid ctaegory does Look, the stimulus says that <the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations>, which if applied the mathematics assumes that it is a low paid categoty, which must have less number of employed.
Hence the answer is B

Last edited by vaka on 24 Sep 2003, 01:51, edited 1 time in total.

also vote for B. Low-paid people hold the same share while employing the most people. High-paid people increase their share—this fact means that overall there are more HP people, though they do not hire that much.

The only way I can think of justifying this answer is this:
If there are more people in low-paying service jobs in 1982, then it is possible that even if they hire the most number of people, this number of people does not add very much to its share of total employment (because it was already very large).

However, if there are less people in high paying service jobs in 1982, they can hire a fewer number of people than the low-paying category does but still increase its share of total employment (because the number of people they are adding, though it be less than the number the low-paying category adds, is a greater percentage of the number of people the high paying category had in 1982.

Mathematically, I think it's similar to this:
Number of low paid people in 1982: 200
Number of high paid ppl in 1982: 2
LP adds 10 people---> total LP in 1995: 210
HP adds 9 people ---> total HP in 1995: 11

So the HP category adds a lot more percentage-wise than the LP category, even though the LP category hires the most absolute number of people.

Then I will tick this problem as that allowing ambiguity: there may be 2 different interpretations of term INCREASE, suggesting 2 different answer choice, which could be both correct depending on one's imagination peculiarities.

well vaka I dint misinterpret the data. I used quantitative fundas as suggested by jlyngl and I dont think A is ambiguous in any way. A percentage increase in any quantity would always be less if it is already very high as compared to a quantity which was initially low. hope it helps

No, guys,
that's not the point I am trying to make. Just look here. I will
use jlyngal data to illustrate my reasoning.
LP adds 10 people ---> total LP in 1995: 210 (10>9, BUT, in terms of %: LP increased on 5%)
HP adds 9 people ---> total HP in 1995: 11 (9<10, BUT in terms of % HP increased on 450%)
You follow me?
A) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations;
A is correct, since number of LP emplyees is 210 (210>11) and increased on 10 (10>9);
B) In 1995 more people will be working in high paying service occ. than will be working in low-paying service occ.
B is correct, since according to conditions provided in stimulus <the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations> The greatest increase (in terms of %) was in a group representing 450% increase, that is why it is a group with 11 employed, which stands for LP group in year 1995. Then another 210 people represent HP group.

Vaka, I still don't quite understand your reasoning for B.

vaka wrote:

LP adds 10 people ---> total LP in 1995: 210 (10>9, BUT, in terms of %: LP increased on 5%) HP adds 9 people ---> total HP in 1995: 11 (9<10, BUT in terms of % HP increased on 450%) You follow me? B) In 1995 more people will be working in high paying service occ. than will be working in low-paying service occ. B is correct, since according to conditions provided in stimulus <the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations> The greatest increase (in terms of %) was in a group representing 450% increase, that is why it is a group with 11 employed, which stands for LP group in year 1995. Then another 210 people represent HP group.

In B, it says that there will be "more people" in HP in 1995. But if you look at the numbers from my math thing, there are only 11 people in the HP group vs. 210 people in the LP group. Clearly, there is a lower number of people in HP than in LP in 1995. I think "more people" in this context can only refer to actual numbers of people and not relative percentages.

jlyngal No, wrong. You dont' get me coz u use conclusion as an evidence, which is not appropriate.
Ok:
<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>
450% of increase indicates that it is a LP category. How many people in it? Eleven. Then how many people are in HP category? Obviously, it is 210.
What is the statement B saying?
<In 1995 more people will be working in high paying service occ. than will be working in low-paying service occ> Holy truth. Isn't it?
That is why I said it was ambiguous. U used 10 versus 9 as a reference, but I used 450% versus 5%

There are two pieces of evidence:
1) 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 says that there will be a greater increase in the NUMBER (not percent) of people hired into LP. "Number" in this context refers to an absolute (not relative) value.

2) LP will not increase its share of total employment; HP will increase its share.

The conclusion one must draw has to resolve these two pieces of evidence.

vaka wrote:

450% of increase indicates that it is a LP category.

Why does 450% indicate it's in the LP category? The way I was thinking was that if one category increased 5% and one increased 450%, it would be LP that was 5% and HP that was 450% (so that evidence #2 would be true). Of course, I know that 5% is increasing the LP share a little bit, but if you took a more extreme example with numbers, you could get that percent to be essentially zero.

Re: CR: service occupation employment [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Sep 2003, 06:40

jlyngal wrote:

I found this one challenging... let me know which answer you'd pick and why!

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 for the 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 occ. than will be working in low-paying service occ. 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.

A is correct.

Use a simple example. Suppose there are 90 LP and 10 HP to start. After 3 years, there are 100 LP and 19 HP. LP has higher increase in numbers (10 to 9), but HP increased share from 10% to 16%. The only way this can happen is if A is true.
_________________

Best,

AkamaiBrah Former Senior Instructor, Manhattan GMAT and VeritasPrep Vice President, Midtown NYC Investment Bank, Structured Finance IT MFE, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley, Class of 2005 MBA, Anderson School of Management, UCLA, Class of 1993

Re: CR: service occupation employment [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Oct 2003, 20:46

jlyngal wrote:

I found this one challenging... let me know which answer you'd pick and why!

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 for the 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 occ. than will be working in low-paying service occ. 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.

IT is really unclear with the INCREASE. It can be absolute number or relative number.
If it is relative you will see that E also good.
Do it must be absolute number and in this case A is the ONLY answer.
However, not really good one
_________________

I have 2 month for gmat.

gmatclubot

Re: CR: service occupation employment
[#permalink]
22 Oct 2003, 20:46