It is currently 13 Dec 2017, 11:03

Decision(s) Day!:

CHAT Rooms | Ross R1 | Kellogg R1 | Darden R1 | Tepper R1


Close

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
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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Sep 2017
Posts: 5

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

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

Show Tags

New post 28 Oct 2017, 01:15
Marco83 wrote:
The question asks for the statement that CAN be supported by the passage.

Note that "greatest increase" means largest in absolute number, not largest percentage increase. We also know that the share of employees in low-paying service jobs will not increase, while the share of the high-paying service employees will rise.

A) If in 1982 there were a total of 100M emplyees and 50M worked in low-paying service jobs and 1M in high-paying service jobs, while in 1995 there were 200M employees and 100M worked in low-paying service jobs and 10M in high-paying service jobs, the absolute increase in low-paying service employees would be 100M abeit with the same share of the total epmloyees, while the absolute increase in high-paying service jobs would be only 9M, but with a tenfold increase in the share of the total eployees. If the number of low-paying workers in 1982 were lower than the number of high-paying workers, then an increase in the total share in the latter would lead to an increase in absolute terms larger than the one attributable to low-paying jobs. Right answer.

B) If it were true, it would contraddict the passage. Wrong answer.

C) Nothing is said about nonservice occupations. Wrong answer.

D) Nothing is said about transfers between groups. Wrong answer.

E) Since low-paying occupations will maintain their share, the rate of growth must be the same as the one of the rate of employment. Wrong answer.


My answer is A


B is the correct answer: Why? please see my thought:

Assume company had 1000 employees in 1982 [ 998 - High paid, 2 - low paid ]
ie. High paid % - 99.8 , Low paid % - .2
Assume company has 1010 employees 1995[ 1000 - High paid, 10 - Low paid ]
Let's take the percent again:
High paid % - 99 , Low paid % - .7
is there any significant increase in employee share? Not even 1%, However, if you look at number of employee increase in low paid jobs its 2-> 8 ( 400% )
With this, apply the process of elimination most likely answer is Option B:

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

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 89

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

Show Tags

New post 28 Oct 2017, 09:34
SudiptoGmat wrote:
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.

What exactly is the correct answer? I chose A, which seemed perfectly logical, but here the answer seems to be B. I wonder if it is correct. Please help!

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 89

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 79

Kudos [?]: 5 [2], given: 8

CAT Tests
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2017, 15:35
2
This post received
KUDOS
Hi mikemcgarry

Below is my interpretation of the problem:

1982 Low= 40, High= 34, Others=26 .
Percentage of low is 40% and of high is %34.
1995- Low 80, High 70, Others 50. total 200. Percentage of low = 40% (constant). % of high 35% (higher).
So, in 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations..
Whereas in 1995, number of high is less than the number of low ones.
Basis this I am obtaining A.

Can you please help me identify the flaw in my reasoning ?

Thanks :)

Kudos [?]: 5 [2], given: 8

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4551

Kudos [?]: 8951 [0], given: 111

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

Show Tags

New post 17 Nov 2017, 06:15
Poorvasha wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry

Below is my interpretation of the problem:

1982 Low= 40, High= 34, Others=26 .
Percentage of low is 40% and of high is %34.
1995- Low 80, High 70, Others 50. total 200. Percentage of low = 40% (constant). % of high 35% (higher).
So, in 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations..
Whereas in 1995, number of high is less than the number of low ones.
Basis this I am obtaining A.

Can you please help me identify the flaw in my reasoning ?

Thanks :)

Dear Poorvasha,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, this is a deeply flawed question. In trying to create a tricky must-be-true questions, the author created a question with more possibilities that he himself was able to imagine. In fact, NOTHING must be true, given this scenario, and a few of the answers could be true. This is a completely train wreck of a question and should be ignored.

Don't automatically assume that, simply because some company says "this is a high quality question," that it actually is. Many many GMAT verbal practice questions are pure trash. You have to be very discerning about the source of the question. Read reviews and testimonials. Caveat emptor.

Here's a high quality practice question:
FANTOD programming

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Kudos [?]: 8951 [0], given: 111

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 79

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 8

CAT Tests
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2017, 02:33
mikemcgarry wrote:
Poorvasha wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry

Below is my interpretation of the problem:

1982 Low= 40, High= 34, Others=26 .
Percentage of low is 40% and of high is %34.
1995- Low 80, High 70, Others 50. total 200. Percentage of low = 40% (constant). % of high 35% (higher).
So, in 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations..
Whereas in 1995, number of high is less than the number of low ones.
Basis this I am obtaining A.

Can you please help me identify the flaw in my reasoning ?

Thanks :)

Dear Poorvasha,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, this is a deeply flawed question. In trying to create a tricky must-be-true questions, the author created a question with more possibilities that he himself was able to imagine. In fact, NOTHING must be true, given this scenario, and a few of the answers could be true. This is a completely train wreck of a question and should be ignored.

Don't automatically assume that, simply because some company says "this is a high quality question," that it actually is. Many many GMAT verbal practice questions are pure trash. You have to be very discerning about the source of the question. Read reviews and testimonials. Caveat emptor.

Here's a high quality practice question:
FANTOD programming

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)



Thank you Mike :). Got the correct answer (C) for the question on FANTOD Programming.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 8

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 29 Jan 2017
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 49

CAT Tests
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2017, 02:43
GMATPill wrote:
You'll need to visualize your answer for this one.
You can identify this question as the same as an "inference" question - some conclusion is stated and we need information in the passage to support it.

Think of the pie to get this one.

"Low" will NOT increase its share of total employment. So let's say that it's share of the pie stays the same, but the overall pie gets bigger.

So, "Low" might have 15% market share. And in 1995, it STILL has 15%...though the overall pie got bigger.

"High" WILL increase its share of total employment. It can either have more or less than the 15% market share that "Low" has.

1) If <15%, let's say 5%. If 5% and "High" increased to 8%, that gain CAN be less than the gain that LOW experiences. While LOW's % market share stays the same, there is an increase in the overall pie and so LOW will increase. HIGH staying at 5% will also increase but it will increase a very small amount. Its share % can increase to 8%, and the total quantity increased can still be smaller than LOW's increase. See example below.

2) If >15%, let's say 25%. If 25% and "High" increased to 35%, that gain is going to be BIGGER than LOW's gain....conflicts with information in the passage


With Numbers:

Assume Total Employment: 100 ---> 200
1982: LOW 15, HIGH 5.
LOW (15/100 = 15%); HIGH (5/100 = 5%)

1995: LOW 30, HIGH 16
LOW (30/200 = 15%); HIGH (16/200 = 8%)

Here, LOW's % stayed the same, but HIGH's % increased. This is consistent with information provided.
But now, LOW's overall increase was 15 (30-15) while HIGH's increase was only 11 (16-5)

LOW must have started off at a higher base.



according to the above explanation, the answer must be A

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 49

Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the   [#permalink] 23 Nov 2017, 02:43

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 26 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.