RenB wrote:
gautham0615 wrote:
Why is option C wrong?
Say:
Income of people in Kuptala: [50,50,50,50... ,50, 10,10]
Income of people in Bahlton: [200,200,10,10] (Assuming only 4 people in Bahlton for simplicity)
Average income differs substantially as we can see.
Also lets assume that the people who are getting 10 as their income as in poverty.
The number of people in extreme poverty is the same in the two countries, but in Bahlton half the population is in extreme poverty. (Question says more than half, so I should have added another 10. But that doesn't really matter)
So one of claims need not be wrong because - It overlooks the possibility that the number of people in the two countries who live in poverty could be the same even though the percentages of the two populations that live in poverty differ markedly. And this is option C.
I applied the same reasoning. Is this reasoning incorrect @ experts-
KarishmaB ScottTargetTestPrep AjiteshArunYes it is incorrect because this logic incorporates the correct option (E) too.
Income of people in Kuptala: [50,50,50,50... ,50, 10,10]
Income of people in Bahlton: [200,200,10,10]
You have made income of people in K much closer to the average than in B. (which is what option (E) suggests)
Why is the income in Bahlton 200, 200? If you are comparing just the number of people in poverty and the percentage of people on poverty, the others must all have an income of 50. This logic works because it incorporates (E) too. Can you do it without this distinction of 50 and 200?
But I can easily do it without this distinction of number of people and percentage of people in poverty
Income of people in Kuptala: [50,50,50,50... ,40, 10,10]
Income of people in Bahlton: [200,200, 200, 200, ... 10, 10, 10, 10,10]
All conditions met though number of people living in poverty is not the same in the two. So option (C) doesn't explain the paradox.