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.
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:
Have you ever wondered how to score a PERFECT 805 on the GMAT? Meet Julia, a banking professional who used the Target Test Prep course to achieve this incredible feat. Julia's story is nothing short of an inspiration.
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!
Originally posted by BillyZ on 10 Oct 2017, 05:51.
Last edited by Sajjad1994 on 05 Jan 2021, 03:19, edited 2 times in total.
Updated - Complete topic (675).
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
4
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In economics, the concept of “propensity to consume” refers to the proportion of disposable income – income after taxes and transfers – that individuals spend on consumption. Marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is a related metric that quantifies induced consumption, the idea that as income increases a consumer’s consumption will also increase. MPC is the proportion of that additional income that an individual consumes; for example, if a household earns one extra dollar of disposable income, and the marginal propensity to consume is 0.65, then of that dollar, the household will spend 65 cents and save 35 cents.
In a standard Keynesian model, the MPC will be less than the average propensity to consume (APC) because in the short-run some (autonomous) consumption does not change with income. Short-term decreases in income do not lead to reductions in consumption, because people reduce savings to stabilize consumption. Over the long-run, as wealth and income rise, consumption also rises; the marginal propensity to consume out of long-run income is closer to the average propensity to consume.
Economists often distinguish between the marginal propensity to consume out of permanent income and the marginal propensity to consume out of temporary income, because if consumers expect a change in income to be permanent, then they have a greater incentive to increase their consumption. This implies that the Keynesian multiplier – the measure of that consumption’s impact on additional consumption in the marketplace – should be larger in response to permanent changes in income than it is in response to temporary changes in income (though the earliest Keynesian analyses ignored these subtleties). However, the distinction between permanent and temporary changes in income is often subtle in practice, and it is often quite difficult to designate a particular change in income as being permanent or temporary. What is more, the marginal propensity to consume should also be affected by factors such as the prevailing interest rate and the general level of consumer surplus that can be derived from purchasing.
C. In this Inference question, it can be inferred from the passage (in paragraph 2) that short-term decreases in income force people to increase their consumption relative to earnings, as you’re told that consumption does not decrease in the short-run. This, then would mean that the ratio of consumption to earnings goes up, therefore increasing MPC.
Question ID: 09960 1. According to the passage, it can be inferred that:
(A) When a household’s income increases, its marginal propensity to consume decreases. (B) Most households cannot accurately delineate between permanent and temporary changes in income. (C) Decreases in income generally lead to short-run increases in marginal propensity to consume. (D) Early Keynesian analyses did not allow for a Keynesian multiplier for income changes with regard to marginal propensity to consume. (E) In the short run, it is impossible for a household to have a negative marginal propensity to consume.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
The passage talks about MPC, APC and consumption and how they are related. In between B and C. I kept B as an option as I read through it. Passage says it is difficult to differentiate but it doesn't mention that it is for household...so kept on hold Option C.. It says when income reduces in short run consumption remains same..that means savings are reduced and a greater proportion of income is dedicated to consumption. Hence option C.
Please explain how C is a valid answer. I am confused because MPC is applicable only when additional income comes in to play.
Read this line in the second paragraph - "Short-term decreases in income do not lead to reductions in consumption, because people reduce savings to stabilize consumption." Earlier, if Income was $1000 and MPC was 0.72 (consumption 1000* 0.72 = $720), and now if the income falls to $800, the consumption remains same, then the MPC increases to 0.9 (720/800).
Please explain how C is a valid answer. I am confused because MPC is applicable only when additional income comes in to play.
Read this line in the second paragraph - "Short-term decreases in income do not lead to reductions in consumption, because people reduce savings to stabilize consumption." Earlier, if Income was $1000 and MPC was 0.72 (consumption 1000* 0.72 = $720), and now if the income falls to $800, the consumption remains same, then the MPC increases to 0.9 (720/800).
Hope this helps!
I agree with what you say but the very definition of MPC is that additional income that the family consumes. So if there is a decrease in income ,the MPC will be negative no ?
I think if the answer choice were to be rephrased, Decreases in income generally lead to short-run increases in propensity to consume. Choice c would be right.
Please explain how C is a valid answer. I am confused because MPC is applicable only when additional income comes in to play.
Read this line in the second paragraph - "Short-term decreases in income do not lead to reductions in consumption, because people reduce savings to stabilize consumption." Earlier, if Income was $1000 and MPC was 0.72 (consumption 1000* 0.72 = $720), and now if the income falls to $800, the consumption remains same, then the MPC increases to 0.9 (720/800).
Hope this helps!
I agree with what you say but the very definition of MPC is that additional income that the family consumes. So if there is a decrease in income ,the MPC will be negative no ?
I think if the answer choice were to be rephrased, Decreases in income generally lead to short-run increases in propensity to consume. Choice c would be right.
MPC is not the additional income that a family consumes, but it is the proportion of that additional income that a family consumes. It is the ratio of changes in consumtion to changes in income. So when the income (Denominator) reduces, but the consumption (Numerator) remains the same, then the MPC (Ratio) increases.
Please explain how C is a valid answer. I am confused because MPC is applicable only when additional income comes in to play.
Read this line in the second paragraph - "Short-term decreases in income do not lead to reductions in consumption, because people reduce savings to stabilize consumption." Earlier, if Income was $1000 and MPC was 0.72 (consumption 1000* 0.72 = $720), and now if the income falls to $800, the consumption remains same, then the MPC increases to 0.9 (720/800).
Hope this helps![/quote]
I agree with what you say but the very definition of MPC is that additional income that the family consumes. So if there is a decrease in income ,the MPC will be negative no ?
I think if the answer choice were to be rephrased, Decreases in income generally lead to short-run increases in propensity to consume. Choice c would be right. [/quote]
But inst the MPC calculated on the additional income and not the total income. So if the current income is say, €1000, what can be calculated is the APC. If the income increases by say, €200, then, MPC would be calculable only in the €200 and not €1200. This is what I am inferring.
I understand this is not the learning from this GMAT question, but only curios to understand the solution.
Read this line in the second paragraph - "Short-term decreases in income do not lead to reductions in consumption, because people reduce savings to stabilize consumption." Earlier, if Income was $1000 and MPC was 0.72 (consumption 1000* 0.72 = $720), and now if the income falls to $800, the consumption remains same, then the MPC increases to 0.9 (720/800).
As said by Sprincejindal above, I understand why option C is correct.
Quote:
However, the distinction between permanent and temporary changes in income is often subtle in practice, and it is often quite difficult to designate a particular change in income as being permanent or temporary.
From the quote above, in option B, the passage suggests that it is quite difficult to designate a particular change, but doesn't say that it is the household that are unable to designate a change in income. Hence option B is also ruled out.
Quote:
This implies that the Keynesian multiplier – the measure of that consumption’s impact on additional consumption in the marketplace – should be larger in response to permanent changes in income than it is in response to temporary changes in income (though the earliest Keynesian analyses ignored these subtleties).
. But when it comes to option D, according to the sentence above, we see that the earlier Keynesian analyses did not account for differences in permanent changes in income and temporary changes in income. And these income changes affect the MPC. Hence shouldn't option D be right?
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.