Surveys in Domorica indicate that only 10% of Domoricans in

Aaaaah ha! So if readership remains the same among 20 yr olds, the likelihood is that readership over all will remain the same? This doesn't make the argument bulletproof, but it strengthens somewhat by stating that at least the population of people in their twenties will remain unchanged?

I thought of the argument in a somewhat similar way.

How can we make sure that readership overall remains the same?

1. Total population does not increase, and neither does readership

2. Population does increase, but increase in ppl 30 and up, offsets increase in 20 yr olds

3. Population drops, but decrease in ppl 30 and up, offsets decrease in in 20 yr olds

So, I guess, any indication that population is going to remain consistent, or that population changes among the two demographics offset each other would strengthen.

What are your thoughts?

Typical GMAT question.

I was on No-Mans land after pre-thinking and reading all options

Hi Karishma,

I understand the reasoning that you provided. The soln I have attached says the existing pattern has always been the same . What if the proportion of Domoricans in their twenties who regularly read a newspaper reduces? This option asks us to assume that the pattern will continue. Ain't this incorrect?

Please help.

Hi Sachin,

When we say that "What if the proportion of Domoricans in their twenties who regularly read a newspaper reduces" we are making an an additional assumption. Of course, if this proportion reduces, (C) might become a doubtful choice; but, we are not supposed to do so. I am using a line from my earlier post(link below) about additional assumptions, which confuse us often.

Note: While strengthening or weakening the argument you should prove that a choice is correct/ incorrect without making any additional assumptions

strengthen-question-not-too-easy-148634.html#p1190969

We do not have a reason to assume that the proportion of Domoricans in their twenties who regularly read a newspaper will reduce. All we can say from the choice (C) is that the proportion has always been low. Based on just this information and the information provided in the stimulus we can say for sure that (C) provides the strongest grounds for the newspaper's prediction.

Hope this clarifies your doubt,

Vercules

Vercules ( verbal hercules)

C asks us to assume that it will be low in the future also.. we have no idea about the future, it may go down or go up. .
I am not assuming it goes up.. but by thinking that it is going to remain low, I am assuming that it will remain low. and the attachment is also assuming the same.

Hi Sachin,

The explanation is not assuming it; this is a good question indeed, but not a very elaborate explanation.

Well, The people who are today in their twenties, 10 years ago, would have been in their 10s or teens(10 - 20). Now currently the people who are in their twenties, 10 years from now, will be in their thirties. We can say for sure that the current trend will continue because the people who will be in their twenties, ten years from now, are presently in their 10s or teens (10 - 20) and this figure will remain the same in future (unless we assume something additional). But, for 10 years from now, based on the given information, we can say that the proportion will be low.

However we can not say what will happen 30 or 40 years from now because people in their twenties, after 30 or 40 years, are not even born at present and their number may change (i.e. based on the given information we can not predict the fertility rates or population of the newly born).

Hope this helps,

Vercules

Actually, the option doesn't ask us to assume anything. It explains us the reason publishers predict that percentage of Domoricans who regularly read a newspaper will remain the same.
The option tells that this has been the pattern for a long time. There is no reason why things should change. Now, when we read the argument, the publishers prediction makes more sense, right? We understand why they predict that the readership will not reduce. This pattern:
People in 20s - 10% read
People in 30s - 50% read
has been there for a long time. The pattern is the same today. So it makes sense that publishers are predicting that overall readership will stay the same after 10 yrs too (when the people in their 20s come to 30s). Otherwise we might have thought that the overall readership might reduce because the young generation doesn't like to read newspapers.

Focus on the question stem: Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest grounds for the newspapers' prediction?
Option (C), gives us strong grounds for publisher's prediction. It tells us why they predict what they do. Hence it is the answer.

Hi Karishma,

In this argument it is mentioned that Domoricans in their twenties constitute a large proportion of the population,
Here by 'large proportion' can we assume that >50% of the population?
while the answer choice A states that 'The number of Domoricans in their twenties is less than the number of Domoricans over thirty'.
Can the answer A be true in any case , i am failing to understand how a section that constitutes a larger proportion of population can have number of people lower than that in a section that constitutes lower proportion of same population

need your help on this
Thanks

No, large population doesn't imply more than 50%. It just means that they do not constitute 2-3% of the population!

So (A) can be true. Perhaps the number of people in 20s is 30% of the population while the number of people in their 30s is 40% of the population.

ITS C.
Consider cases:
twenties:100 10
thirties case1:30 16
thirties case 2:10 6

Newspaper publishers predict that +10 years from now the percentage of Dom. who regularly read newspapers will not be lower than it is today.

The evidence given to support this is a survey that indicates that only 10% of Dom. in their 20s read a newspaper regularly, while >50% of Dom. over 30 read regularly.

What could possibly support this assertion made?

(A) The number of Domoricans in their twenties is less than the number of Domoricans over thirty.
If anything this would run counter to the claim.
(B) The number of newspaper published in Domorica has been gradually increasing over the past several decades.
How does an increase in circulation magically lead to an increase in readership?

(C) The proportion of Domoricans in their twenties who regularly read a newspaper has always been low.
This is really just saying that the trend that led to the existing readership of people in their 30s has not changed from what it was. This statement essentially states that trends will continue.

(D) The surveys defined a regular reader of a newspaper as someone who reads a newspaper more than twice a week.
Cool story, but this doesn't SUPPORT the prediction.

(E) The proportion of Domoricans who regularly read a newspaper was higher 20 years ago than it is today.
If anything a declining readership would lead us to believe that the prediction if false.

Understanding the argument -
10% of Domoricans (Ds) in their 20s regularly read newspapers. 10% means - 10 per 100. I know we all know that, but I'm just sharing to refresh our memories. You'll see in option eliminations.
More than half of all Dominicans over thirty read a newspaper regularly. Say more than 50%. It's more than 50 per 100.
Ten years from now, the percentage of Domoricans who regularly read a newspaper will probably be no lower than it is today. - It says the percentage, i.e., per 100.

So it's a type of question in which the base doesn't matter. Had the conclusion been that the number of Ds who regularly ...blah blah..then the base will matter. So, any option type that talks about numbers here is wrong.

Option Elimination -

(A) The number of Domoricans in their twenties is less than the number of Domoricans over thirty. - The base doesn't matter. Wrong.

(B) The number of newspaper published in Domorica has been gradually increasing over the past several decades. - The base doesn't matter. Wrong.

(C) The proportion of Domoricans in their twenties who regularly read a newspaper has always been low. - OK, as it talks about proportion. And the trend.

(D) The surveys defined a regular reader of a newspaper as someone who reads a newspaper more than twice a week. - Definition is out of scope.

(E) The proportion of Domoricans who regularly read a newspaper was higher 20 years ago than it is today. - It shows a decreasing trend. At best, it can be a weakener and not a strengthener.