It is currently 19 Oct 2017, 07:55

STARTING SOON:

Live Chat with Cornell Adcoms in Main Chat Room  |  R1 Interview Invites: MIT Sloan Chat  |  UCLA Anderson Chat  |  Duke Fuqua Chat (EA Decisions)


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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Demographers doing research for an international economics

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 45

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

Demographers doing research for an international economics [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Oct 2005, 22:26
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Demographers doing research for an international economics newsletter claim that the average per capita income in the country of Kuptala is substantially lower than that in the country of Bahlton. They also claim, however, that whereas poverty is relatively rare in Kuptala, over half the population of Bahlton lives in extreme poverty. At least one of the demographer's claims must, therefore, be wrong.

The argument above is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

A) It rejects an empirical claim about the average per capita incomes in the two countries without making any attempt to discredit that claim by offering additional economic evidence.

B) It treats the vague term "poverty" as though it had a precise and universally accepted meaning.

C) It overlooks the possibility that the number of people in the two countries who live in poverty could be the same ven though the percentages of the two populations that live in poverty differ markedly.

D) It fails to show that wealth and poverty have the same social significance in Kuptala as in Bahlton.

E) It does not consider the possibility that incomes in Kuptala, unlike those in Bahlton, might all be very close to the country's average per capita income.

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

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 38

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

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Oct 2005, 00:32
I would go for E

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

GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5034

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Oct 2005, 02:48
I'll take C. It shows that the number of people who live in poverty are actually equal and Bahlton could have a larger population that could swing the average per capita income in their favor.

Kudos [?]: 437 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2005
Posts: 45

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

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Oct 2005, 10:09
Pls post ans with explanation.

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

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 589

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Oct 2005, 12:26
E is the correct answer.

Both claims are consistent if the distribution of wealth in K is uniform and the distribution of wealth in K is not uniform. This is introduced indirectly in E.

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2005
Posts: 786

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Oct 2005, 17:30
I may be wrong. But I pick B.

It is not sound to relate poverty and per-capita income directly.

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798

Kudos [?]: 170 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Oct 2005, 20:04
E makes sense.

Kudos [?]: 170 [0], given: 0

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 1112

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

Location: London, UK
Schools: Tuck'08
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Oct 2005, 04:05
E was my pick too
I think OA is ok for this one

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 14 Sep 2005
Posts: 984

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 0

Location: South Korea
 [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Oct 2005, 17:40
Kuptala = lower per capita income, rare poverty
Bahlton = higher per capita income, 50% population in poverty

The argument above is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

(A) not relevant

(B) It is true that the term "poverty" is vague here, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that the same criteria of poverty is used for both nations.

(C) Makes sense, but doesn't have to be "the same".

D) not relevant

E) Poverty should be rare if all incomes are close to the average per capita income.

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 0

  [#permalink] 16 Oct 2005, 17:40
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Demographers doing research for an international economics

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

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®.