Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 26 Feb 2017, 16:56

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 659
Location: London
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2006, 06:18
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations. This category, however, will not increase its share of total employment, whereas the category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share.

If the estimates above are accurate, which of the following conclusions can be drawn?

(A) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations.
(B) In 1995 more people will be working in high-paying service occupations than will be working in low-paying service occupations.
(C) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982.
(D) Many of the people who were working in low-paying service occupations in 1982 will be working in high-paying service occupations by 1995.
(E) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995.

If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 129
Location: New York, NY
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2006, 07:15
I'm stuck between A & B, although I don't think either of them are correct. C,D and E are definitely either not true, or out of scope. If forced, I would go with A. Anybody else have any ideas on this one?
VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1134
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2006, 09:15
I'm going with E.

A - No way of knowing. We only know that that the increase in the number of low-paying service jobs is the maximum when compared to other jobs.
B - No way of knowing. We only know that that the increase in the number of low-paying service jobs is the maximum when compared to other jobs.
C - Cannot be calculated.
D - Out of scope
E - Keep because of POE
Manager
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 145
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2006, 09:51
Another one for A.

Tried to come up with a clear explanation, but all I could do was to negate the other choices... A was left...

It cannot be E, because what if the following scenario is considered:

Out of total 1000 ppl employed in â€™82, 500 ppl were in LP service occupations. This sector increased by 100 ppl, i.e. a rate of growth of 20%. But at the same time, the overall total # of ppl employed grew to 1300, i.e. a rate of growth of 30%. Out of this increase of 300 ppl, 100 ppl came from the LP service occupations, but the remaining 200 ppl could have come from 10 other sectors, i.e. 20 ppl from ea sector, and thus still being consistent with the claim that the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations. That eliminates choice E.
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2004
Posts: 497
Location: Europe
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 74 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2006, 19:25
One more for 'A'.
Intern
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 36
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2006, 19:59
A for me.

Here's a little example...

Lets say there are 100 jobs in this economy. Let us allocate it at 90 low-salary and 10 High-salary.

If we increase the low-salary jobs by 5, it would end up at 95
If we increase the high-salary jobs by 4, it would end up at 14

Before the increased jobs:
High salary: 10% of economy
Low-salary: 90% of economy

After change:
High Salary: 14/109 = Approx. 12.8%
Low Salary: 95/109 = Approx. 87%

Increased High salary share; Decreased Low Salary share.

Which is why I choose A.
Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2005
Posts: 102
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2006, 03:58
akiboshi wrote:
A for me.

Here's a little example...

Lets say there are 100 jobs in this economy. Let us allocate it at 90 low-salary and 10 High-salary.

If we increase the low-salary jobs by 5, it would end up at 95
If we increase the high-salary jobs by 4, it would end up at 14

Before the increased jobs:
High salary: 10% of economy
Low-salary: 90% of economy

After change:
High Salary: 14/109 = Approx. 12.8%
Low Salary: 95/109 = Approx. 87%

Increased High salary share; Decreased Low Salary share.

Which is why I choose A.

In your example you assume that in 1982 there were more low paying jobs, however we are not told this. What if the number of low paying jobs was less than the high paying jobs? then the numbers change direction.

In this question my argument is that more people were hired for low paying jobs but at the same time moved on to high paying jobs. Hence, no increase to the total employment rate for low paying jobs but there was an increase in high paying jobs.

So I go for D though A sounds plausible I need further explantion.
VP
Joined: 29 Apr 2003
Posts: 1403
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2006, 04:21
I go for A
Intern
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2006, 05:12
A....
Director
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 659
Location: London
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2006, 06:46
The OA is A, but I stil lam not able to understand why though.
Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 128
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2006, 07:12
I thought E
Manager
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 145
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2006, 15:47
remgeo wrote:
The OA is A, but I stil lam not able to understand why though.

What is the source? Do you have an explanation that came with the answer?
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 476
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2006, 18:42
This question is based on % increase vs actual increase.

Suppose in 1982 total number of people employed = 100

LP = 80 --. 80%

HP = 20 --- 20%

In 1995, Total number of people employed = 220

LP = 176, total % = 80

HP = 45.

Here actaul number of LP jobs has increased, but % remain same, where as for HP actual number is less but % is more

Hence A
Manager
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 158
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2006, 19:09
gmat_crack wrote:
This question is based on % increase vs actual increase.

Suppose in 1982 total number of people employed = 100

LP = 80 --. 80%

HP = 20 --- 20%

In 1995, Total number of people employed = 220

LP = 176, total % = 80

HP = 45.

Here actaul number of LP jobs has increased, but % remain same, where as for HP actual number is less but % is more

How will HP be 45 ..it will be 44..and thus the %age of HP also remains same.
I still donot understand the OA.Please explain

Hence A
Director
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 659
Location: London
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2006, 01:15
gmat_crack wrote:
This question is based on % increase vs actual increase.

Suppose in 1982 total number of people employed = 100

LP = 80 --. 80%

HP = 20 --- 20%

In 1995, Total number of people employed = 220

LP = 176, total % = 80

HP = 45.

Here actaul number of LP jobs has increased, but % remain same, where as for HP actual number is less but % is more

Hence A

But why did you assume a higher percent for the low paying jobs?
Even if figures were LP = 20%, HP= 80%, all these could happen, isnt it.

I do not have the OE for this question. I just know that the OA is A.
Intern
Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 36
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2006, 01:34
remgeo wrote:
gmat_crack wrote:
This question is based on % increase vs actual increase.

Suppose in 1982 total number of people employed = 100

LP = 80 --. 80%

HP = 20 --- 20%

In 1995, Total number of people employed = 220

LP = 176, total % = 80

HP = 45.

Here actaul number of LP jobs has increased, but % remain same, where as for HP actual number is less but % is more

Hence A

But why did you assume a higher percent for the low paying jobs?
Even if figures were LP = 20%, HP= 80%, all these could happen, isnt it.

I do not have the OE for this question. I just know that the OA is A.

Because there is no way, given the information provided by the passage, for the HP to be greater in percentage than the LP and still get the results in the passage. Think about it:

Number of workers = 100

If LP = 20% of 100 = 20 workers
and HP = 80% of 100 = 80 workers

How would LP's % not go up if they had the largest increase in emploment?

LP increases by 20 workers and HP increases by 10 workers (remember, HP has to have an increase in order to gain some share).

After:
LP = 40 workers = 40/130 = ~30%
HP = 90 workers = 90/130 = ~70%

As you can see, if we follow the passage as assume LP greater than HP, the conditions would not hold since LP gained share when it should have either stayed the same or loss share.
07 Apr 2006, 01:34
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the 7 24 Nov 2010, 15:03
10 Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the 18 18 Jan 2010, 08:20
Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the 8 07 Sep 2008, 00:59
Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the 10 24 Jul 2008, 11:00
Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the 5 25 Feb 2008, 15:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by