As per a report published by the United States Bureau

Rafiquemunna

let previous income in agri sector is 1000
then its 10% increase is 100
now its income is 1000+100 = 1100

similarly suppose previous income in other sector is 100
then its 10% increase is 10
now its income is 100+10 = 110

or the situation may be vice vera

then we cannot arrive conclusion for sure
therefore our ans is B

hope u understand

As per a report published by the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, in the last five years, the per capita income of American workers employed in Agriculture and allied services has increased by 10 percent while that of American workers employed in other sectors has increased by 20 percent. Therefore, American workers employed in other sectors now earn a higher per capita income than those employed in Agriculture and allied services.

The argument's reasoning is questionable because the argument fails to rule out the possibility that

A five years ago, fewer American workers were employed in other sectors than in Agriculture and allied services
B five years ago, the per capita income of American workers employed in other sectors was significantly less than that of American workers employed in Agriculture and allied services
C over the last five years, the number of American workers employed in other sectors has decreased
D over the last five years, many American workers who were previously employed in Agriculture and allied services shifted to other sectors
E the total national income generated by Agriculture and allied services now is still greater than that generated by other sectors

Solution:The increase is compared w.r.t previous value(5 yrs ago)

what if the previous value(the per capita income of American workers employed in other sectors ) was way smaller than that with which it is being compared (per capita income of American workers employed in Agriculture and allied services)

for example- a 10 to 15 value increase is 50% increase
while a 20 to 25 value increase is 25% increase
although amount of change in both the cases is of 5 units ,percentage increase is different and depends on original value.

hence B is the correct choice.

Reward the kudos if you like the explanation.

regards,
Atul Pandey

Why not D bcz per capita income=total income by/total popoulation(here no of workers)
So if no of people from agriculture will shift to other sector then in that sector no of people will increase thereby decreasing per capita income .
I understood the concept of B ,even i was going to mark it but was tempted by D.plz answer someone

Posted from my mobile device

Dear,

I understand your point of confusion about option D

While deriving the logic for change in Per capita income (if a no. Of people from Agriculture sector moved to other sector) you missed a point that the numerator(i.e total income from that sector) may also increase/ decrease in unknown amount( what if high earners moved....what if low earners moved etc.)
Hence concrete reasoning is not there.

As per this questions we have to look for such an answer choice whose inclusion strengthens the argument's reasoning.

Award kudos if you like the explanation.?

Regards,
Atul Pandey

Hey nightblade354

Please change the tag to Logical Flaw

Thanks

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.