Vavali wrote:
ANswer with explanation please. Thanks
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 demographers’ 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 even 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.
@KarishmaB , I took 2:30 mins to solve this question, is that a good tie for a 700+ cr ques?
Responding to a pm:
Let's understand the argument:
"
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." -
Say average per capita income of K is $10,000
Say average per capita income of B is $40,000
"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 demographers’ claims must, therefore, be wrong."This is possible with the numbers given above, right? Say, poverty is defined as < $5000. Say, most people in K earn $10,000. Very few are less than $5000 and very few are above $15000. Say most people lie close to the average.
On the other hand, it is possible that 80% of people in B earn only $1000. Then the rest of the 20% must have very high income i.e. say $150,000. In that case, even though average per capita income would be relatively higher, most of the population would be below poverty line.
"
At least one of the demographers’ claims must, therefore, be wrong."This is incorrect conclusion. It is not necessary that at least one of the demographers’ claims must be wrong as we showed above with some numbers.
The argument above is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(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.
This is exactly what we thought. Incomes in K might be very close to the country's average so that very few people have less than average income (or below poverty line) whereas the gap between in incomes in B might be very high such that many people fall below the poverty line.
Hence (E) is the answer.
close
31 Oct 2018, 00:36
