GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 26 Apr 2019, 08:58

### 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

# Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 146
Location: India
Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 14 Apr 2019, 09:00
4
46
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

24% (02:22) correct 76% (02:26) wrong based on 854 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Project CR Butler:Day 53:Critical Reasoning (CR1)

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.

_________________
Cheers,
SD

Originally posted by SudiptoGmat on 18 Jan 2010, 09:20.
Last edited by gmat1393 on 14 Apr 2019, 09:00, edited 4 times in total.
Corrected OA
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9151
Location: Pune, India
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Mar 2019, 22:47
1
SudiptoGmat wrote:

Project CR Butler:Day 53:Critical Reasoning (CR1)

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.

"Number of people employed" will be in various categories: LowS jobs, HighS jobs, LowM jobs, HighM jobs etc
Our concern is the service sector's low (LowS) and high (HighS) paying categories.

LowS will see an increase in the number of people employed but its share in overall employment will not increase. This means the overall employment number must have increased in 1995.

Say in 1982, total people employed was 100 (No. of LowS = L, No. of HighS = H)
Say in 1995, total people employed doubles and becomes 200

To retain their share in the total numbers, both LowS and HighS must have doubled too and become 2L and 2H.
LowS's share did not increase so it did not become more than 2L. Max it became 2L
HighS's share actually increased so it became more than 2H, say it became 2.1H or 3H etc.

Now note that the increase of L in LowS is maximum. So L > 1.1H or 2H etc
Hence in 1982, the number of people employed in LowS jobs were higher than number of people employed in HighS jobs.
Hence (A) is correct.

As for (B), it is not correct. Assume L = 50 and H = 10 (LowS and HighS numbers of 1982)
The numbers becomes 2L = 100 and 3H = 30 in 1995.
All conditions are satisfied but HighS is not greater than LowS in 1995.

(C) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982.
Not necessary. Share of HighS has increased. If share of LowS remains the same, non service occupations may account for lower share of total employment.

(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.
Not necessary. We don't know if new people joined HighS or people shifted from LowS.

(E) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995.
No. The share of LowS does not increase. So its rate of growth is not higher than growth of overall rate of employment.

_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

SVP
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2282
Location: New York, NY
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2012, 09:02
8
3
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.
##### General Discussion
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 429
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2010, 09:28
1
IMO B
Intern
Joined: 08 Nov 2009
Posts: 45
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2010, 12:23
7
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.

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.

Director
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 720
WE 1: 3.5 yrs IT
WE 2: 2.5 yrs Retail chain
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Apr 2010, 05:54
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 152
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2010, 00:55
1
It should be named MCR - Mathematical Critical reasoning
Manager
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Posts: 100
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jun 2010, 03:51
recall my stake on B.

Calculation mistake ;P
_________________
Manager
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
Posts: 80
Location: India
Schools: ISB
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jun 2010, 11:21
I will go with E as conclusion should be drawn based upon range of year(1982 and 1995) and not on individual years. Expert comment on this pls.

What is the OA?
_________________
_________________
If you like my post, consider giving me a kudos. THANKS!
Manager
Status: If u've ego, u've reached ur limit; if ur humble u've no limit.
Affiliations: IIT
Joined: 04 Mar 2011
Posts: 61
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.1
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Mar 2012, 07:44
1
I thought only D is properly explaining the paradox presented. how?

Premise - greatest increase in the number of ppl employed will be in low-paying service occupation yet the share of total employment will not increase whereas that of high-paying service occupation will increase.

Clearly, we needed the low-paying service occupation employees to move into high-paying service occupation.

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. Irrelevant! The question concerns share of total and not just the number of employee.
(B) In 1995 more people will be working in high-paying service occupations than will be working in low-paying service occupations. Irrelevant! The question concerns share of total and not just the number of employee.
(C) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982. - Doesn't emplain the paradox presented
(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. - This is exactly what we needed to explain paradox.(E) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995. then why is the share low?
_________________
--Syed
" Some are desperate for success, and therefore destined for it."
Intern
Joined: 07 Jan 2012
Posts: 13
GMAT Date: 04-30-2012
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2012, 07:48
I will go with B - can someone please post the OA?
Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 125
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q44 V39
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2012, 06:18
1
I think the answer must be B

A) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations. No data provided to support this. Only data mentioned for period between 1982 and 1995
(B) In 1995 more people will be working in high-paying service occupations than will be working in low-paying service occupations. - Correct answer. If high paying service occupations has higher share, it must be concluded that there are more high paying service jobs
(C) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982. - No data to support this
(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. - This cannot be assumed. Entirely new set of people may join all the high paying service occupations.
(E) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995. - Again, not supported by data. overall rate of employment is not given.
Intern
Joined: 16 Feb 2014
Posts: 1
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2014, 20:37
the tricky part of this question is it assuming at least one other category exists besides H/L Paying category.
thinking like this will make this question quite easy. otherwise it's a dead end.
SVP
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1661
Concentration: Finance
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2014, 16:59
babylonGMAT wrote:
the tricky part of this question is it assuming at least one other category exists besides H/L Paying category.
thinking like this will make this question quite easy. otherwise it's a dead end.

Could you PLEASE elaborate more on this? What's the logic here?

Cheers!
J
Intern
Joined: 31 Jan 2014
Posts: 11
Schools: NTU '17, AGSM '16
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Apr 2014, 07:04
jlgdr wrote:
babylonGMAT wrote:
the tricky part of this question is it assuming at least one other category exists besides H/L Paying category.
thinking like this will make this question quite easy. otherwise it's a dead end.

Could you PLEASE elaborate more on this? What's the logic here?

Cheers!
J

Simple.
The years is 1982.

Let us assume there are only 100 people working. 50 people are working in low paying jobs and 25 people in high paying jobs.
That means they form a 25% of the workforce.

The year is 1995
The workforce has doubled. As per the condition the share of the pi of the low paying jobs is still 1/4 so there will be 50 people in low paying jobs. Now, less that 25 people joined high paying jobs; as the conditions states max. no. joined in low payin jobs. Assume 20 people join. That takes their total share to 22.5%.

All this is in allignment with the premise.

Now if we were tweak the raitios such that more people were in high paying jobs thn low paying jobs, everything would fall apart.

As far as the remaning options are considered they can be eliminated by using above ratios.
Intern
Joined: 17 Jul 2013
Posts: 32
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Health Care)
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 May 2014, 11:48
I think I went bald on this one :D

Could get this one after a fair bit of thought
C, D, and E are out straight away for we don't have enough info to support those choices

the race is between A and B and I chose B initially, the correct answer seems to be A

My reasoning:

1982: 100 employees, low paying = 25, high paying = 50, others = 25 (note: it is not mentioned that high paying and low paying are the only categories)
so share of low paying = 25 / 100 = 25%
1995: 200 employees, so low paying must be = 50 in order to maintain the 25% share (50/200)
Now this would mean that the absolute increase in low paying is 50 - 25 = 25 and it is given that no other category had such an absolute increase.
So, the absolute increase in high paying would be <25 ==> in 1995 the high paying would be between 50 and 74, let it be max = 74. Now if you look at the other category it has to increase substantially above absolute increase of 25 in order for the sum to be 200
ie. 50 + 74 + 76 but that increase would contradict the information provided. Hence B is wrong

Why option A?

1982: 100 employees, low paying = 50, high paying = 25, others = 25, share of low paying = 50 %
1995: 200 employees, low paying = 100, high paying = 50, others = 50, share of low paying = 50%

Absolute increase in low paying from 1982 to 1995 = 100 - 50 = 50
The other categories must have absolute increase of less than 50. This is only true if in 1982 low paying employees > no of high paying employees.

Try it with other set of numbers while practicing this one. Hope it helps!
_________________
I'm on 680... 20 days to reach 700 +
Intern
Joined: 23 Sep 2017
Posts: 5
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2017, 02:15
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.

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.

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:
Intern
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Posts: 12
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2017, 10:34
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!
Manager
Joined: 11 Jun 2017
Posts: 69
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Nov 2017, 16:35
2
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.

Thanks
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4485
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Nov 2017, 07:15
3
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.

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

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
Re: Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the   [#permalink] 17 Nov 2017, 07:15

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 34 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by