Bunuel wrote:
The juvenile literacy rate, number of adolescents per 100 who are literate, in Keating has risen forty percent over the previous three years ago. In Nickleby, the juvenile literacy rate has risen only twelve percent over the same time period. This data supports the conclusion that adolescents growing up in Keating are more likely to become literate than are adolescents growing up in Nickleby.
The argument above is flawed because it fails to take into account
A. how the juvenile population density of both Keating and Nickleby has changed over the past three years
B. what the juvenile literacy rates of Keating and Nickleby were three years ago
C. the change in the ratio of literate to illiterate juveniles three years ago and now in Keating and Nickleby
D. a comparison between the rate of juvenile population growth in Keating over the past three years and the corresponding rate in Nickleby
E. a comparison between expenditures on juvenile education made over the past three years in Keating and the same made in Nickleby
Happy New Year Bahamas, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Navassa Island, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, East Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia!
Dec 31 Event: GMAT Club Around The World!(38 new questions posted every hour time zone on Dec 31!)
Juvenile literacy rate in Keating increased forty percent in three years that in Nickleby increased twelve percent Keating adolescents are more likely to become literate than Nickleby adolescents (conclusion)
Missing-link: Between all the information presented and the conclusion that Keating adolescents are more likely to become literate than Nickleby adolescents
Expectation from the correct answer choice: Something on the lines of assuming that literacy rates in the two cities were similar three years ago
Note: This question tests the classic GMAT error of assuming that two similar entities are comparable; in this argument, before making a conclusion about whether juvenile literacy rates between Juvenile and Nickleby today, one must evaluate whether their literacy rates were similar three years ago. Additionally, please be extra careful when you see numbers/percentages/proportions in CR questions; often, the key lies in the numbers.
A. Trap. The argument is concerned with juvenile literacy “rate” per 100 adolescents; so, the change in juvenile population density, meaning population per unit area, is just additional consideration and has no bearing on the argument. Because this answer choice does not indicate the information failing to account for which leads to a flaw in the argument, this answer choice is incorrect.
B. Correct. When the literacy rates in two cities are compared, a greater literacy rate increase in one city over a period of time leads to greater literacy in that city if the two cities had a similar literacy rate at the beginning of the period; in other words, without comparing the original juvenile literacy rates in Keating and Nickleby three years ago, no comparison between their literacy rates “now” can be obtained based on the increase in the literacy rate in the last three years; the argument fails to consider the piece of information mentioned in this answer choice and is thus flawed. Because this answer choice indicates the information failing to account for which leads to a flaw in the argument, this answer choice is correct.
C. Trap. The argument considers the increase in literacy rate per 100 adolescents in Keating and Nickleby over three years, suggesting that the change in the ratio of literate to illiterate juveniles in the two cities is considered in the argument. Because this answer choice does not indicate the information failing to account for which leads to a flaw in the argument, this answer choice is incorrect.
D. Trap. The argument is concerned with juvenile literacy rate “per 100 adolescents”; so, the change in “population” is just additional consideration and has no bearing on the argument. Because this answer choice does not indicate the information failing to account for which leads to a flaw in the argument, this answer choice is incorrect.
E. The argument is concerned with juvenile literacy “rate” in the two cities and not with any reason for the change in the rate; so, comparison between expenditures on juvenile education in the two cities is out of scope. Because this answer choice does not indicate the information failing to account for which leads to a flaw in the argument, this answer choice is incorrect.
B is the best choice.
close
31 Dec 2021, 22:00
43%
(01:50)
wrong 
