sayantanc2k VeritasKarishma GMATNinja nightblade354 mikemcgarryHello experts!
I have some doubts regarding this question. If you may, would you help me clarify them?
Assuming a 50% probability of having a male son, I understand it becomes a mathematical problem (n/(2.ki)), and then it is true that the population growth will be lowered, and that the female to male ratio will balance.
That is certainly a logical assumption, but it's not in the argument itself. When I did the problem I assumed that the previous birth control programs (BCP1) did not work (and people were having on average 5 kids) because those people wanted
at least one male son. Therefore, I thought: maybe the probability of having a male son was less than 50% probability.
Then (assuming people would stop reproducing after the first male son):
If the population rate keeps increasing => there will be more female kids, and f:m should increase.
If the population rate was reduced => there will be fewer female kids, and f:m should decrease.
If the population rate was kept constant => the proportion f:m should stay somewhere similar.
1. If the probability of having a male son is 50%, and people want at least one male son, then why did the BCP1 fail? There has to be another reason.
2. Is this so because the argument says "It has been
suggested that...."? If that is the case, it is very tricky...
Thank you for your help.
Kind regards,
Nicolas