Understanding the argument -
Premise/Claim -
1. Average per capita in Kuptala (K) is substantially lower than Bahlton (B)
2. Poverty is relatively rare in K, while >50% of B's population lives in poverty
Conclusion - At least one of the claims is false
The argument touches on the classic statistical flaw, which is giving some statistics about averages and percentages and leaving the possibility that a situation can be true while both claims are correct. How? If K has the majority of its people living around the average (which is obviously above the poverty range), which is substantially lower than B's average, and in B, 20% of the people are wealthy while 80% are just abysmal, then B's average while much higher than K - shows a possible scenario that the author has missed. And that's the flaw.
We have to find a flaw in the argument.
Option Elimination -
(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. - While this option talks about one claim, how about the other? Moreover, the author is not rejecting anything. Reject means refuse - The author didn't say I refuse to accept your claim. He is saying the claim must be false.
(B) It treats the vague term “poverty” as though it had a precise and universally accepted meaning. No, this is not a flaw. Out of scope.
(C) 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. The number of people doesn't matter as we don't know the total population. What we are given is average and poverty. That's sufficient to point to the flaw. This is a distortion to waste time.
(D) It fails to show that wealth and poverty have the same social significance in Kuptala as in Bahlton. - out of scope.
(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. exactly. That explains why poverty is extremely low and also shows a possibility, as discussed in our pre-thinking.