Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre

Question

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.

GMATPill · Accepted Answer

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.

KarishmaB · Answer

"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.

Answer (A)

Marco83 · Answer

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

paranoidvik · Answer

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!

Poorvasha · Answer

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

mikemcgarry · Answer

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

mview · Answer

Definitions:
 L : Number of Low Paying Jobs in 1982
 H : Number of High Paying Jobs in 1982
 a : gain of low-paying jobs such that  a L  is the number of low paying jobs in 1995
 b : gain of high-paying jobs such that  b H  is the number of high paying jobs in 1995
 T : total number of jobs in 1982.

Applying the conditions:
1) Since Low paying jobs ".. will not increase its share of total employment," the total number of employees must also increase by at least  a  to become  aT

2) The text says that "category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share"
In other words  bH/aT > H/T , hence  b>a

3)Also, since "the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations.", the number of employees increases more for low-paying jobs than for high-paying jobs:  aL-L>bH-H  
Rearranging  L/H > (b-1)/(a-1) . 
Solving:
Combining 2 and 3:  b>a  or  b-1>a-1  or  (b-1)/(a-1) > 1 , one can conclude that  L/H > 1 .
Or  L > H , which is exactly answer choice A.

davidbeckham · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja , please could explain the difference between A and B?

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi

Let me try to address your query.

Let us denote number high paying service jobs by H and low paying service jobs as L. Let us also denote their corresponding years within parentheses. So H (1995) would mean number of high paying service jobs in the year 1995.

The stimulus tells us that L (1995) - L (1982) will be the largest among all categories of jobs, hence also including H.
It also tells us that L (1995) will form the same proportion of total jobs in 1995 as L (1982) did in 1982.
Finally, we are told that H (1995) as a proportion of total jobs in 1995 will be greater than H (1982) as a proportion of total jobs in 1982.

Now let us come to the answer options (A) and (B).

(A) states L (1982) > H (1982). This is clearly true, since L has increased the maximum without improving its share of total jobs, but as a proportion of itself, H should have increased by more than L (since only then it can increase its own share of total jobs as stated in the stimulus).
(B) states H (1995) > L (1995). This is incorrect - simple numerical values can be plugged in for L, H to verify this.

Hope this helps.

Kratosgmat · Answer

note: argument says share of L doesn't increase which means it could have stayed same or reduced

1. if share stayed same
share of L = L/H+L
now,

if ratio was same, change in L will be equal to change in (H+L)

that is if L increased by 20%, (H+L) also increased 20% which means H must also increase by 20%

L/H+L = 1.2L/1.2H+1.2L=1.2L/1.2(H+L)=L/H+L

now increase in L is the highest in 1995
so 
02L>0.2H
or L>H

but note in this case share of H in 1995 would be

1.2H/1.2(H+L)=H/H+L= share in 1982, which is against our argument

which means share of L must have reduced and cannot be the same

2. If share of L reduced,

initially in 1982 share of L = L/H+L
similarly share of H = H/H+L

finally in 1995 
 share of L = 1.2 L/1.3H+1.2L - share of L reduce even though number inc by 20 percent
similarly share of H = 1.3H/1.3H+1.2L share of H increases 
.2L>0.3H or L>1.5H

Hence option A

bronaugust · Answer

To solve this question, let us deploy  IMS's four-step technique .

STEP #1   ->  IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE

Let us read the question stem to identify the question type.
 
The stem indicates a  conclusion  question.

STEP #2   ->  X-RAY THE ARGUMENT

In a  conclusion  question, it is a must to x-ray the passage and understand it. Let us therefore read the passage.
 
 Let us now note the facts.

FACT #1:  Between 1982 and 1995, the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations.
 FACT #2:  The category of low-paying service occupations will not increase its share of total employment, whereas the category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share.

STEP #3   ->  FRAME A SHADOW ANSWER

In a  conclusion  question, the correct answer should simply be 100 percent validated by the stated facts in the passage.

SHADOW ANSWER:  Any situation that is fully validated by the stated facts.

STEP #4   ->  ELIMINATE INCORRECT OPTIONS

Options that do not match the shadow answer can be eliminated.
 
  MATCHES THE SHADOW ANSWER  |  KEEP  
 Let us say 5 people were employed in service occupations in 1982. Out of these, 3 belonged to low-paying service occupations (LPO) and 1 to a high-paying service occupation (HPO). The remaining one person was employed in a moderate-paying service occupation (MPO).

3 (LPO)  +  1 (HPO)  +  1 (MPO)  =  5 (TOTAL)

This equation indicates what is stated in this option: More people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations in 1982.

Let us now get to the facts.

The very first fact states that the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations.

So, if 3 people get added to the low-paying service sector, less than 3 people should get added to each of the remaining two sectors. Let us say 2 people get added to the high-paying service sector and none gets added to the moderate-paying service sector. We can translate this detail into the following equation.

3 + 3 (LPO)  +  1 + 2 (HPO)  +  1 + 0 (MPO)  =  10 (TOTAL)

The second fact, nonetheless, states that the category of low-paying service occupations will not increase its share of total employment, whereas the category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share. Let us now see what we can arrive at based on the two equations (highlighted).

Evidently, we can arrive at the following.

(i) The share of the category of LPO in 1982 was 60% (3/5).
(ii) The share of the category of HPO in 1982 was 20% (1/5).
(iii) The share of the category of LPO in 1995 would be 60% (6/10).
(iv) The share of the category of HPO in 1995 would be 30% (3/10).

Clearly, the second fact is validated if the first fact and what is stated in this answer option happen to be true  (for 60%, which is LPO's share of total employment in 1995, is obviously not greater than 60%, LPO's share of total employment in 1982, and 30%, HPO's share of total employment in 1995, is clearly greater than 20%, HPO's share of total employment in 1982) . Since this option matches the shadow answer, we had better not eliminate it. 
 
  NOT A MATCH  |  ELIMINATE  
 Our working has indicated the opposite of what is mentioned in this option. Eliminate. 
 
  NOT A MATCH  |  ELIMINATE  
 Remember, we need an option that is 100 percent validated by the stated facts. Neither fact discusses nonservice occupations. We can safely eliminate this option. 
 
  NOT A MATCH  |  ELIMINATE  
 Again, our working confirms that what is stated in this option does not need to be true for the facts in the passage to stay on solid ground. Let us eliminate this option. 
 
  NOT A MATCH  |  ELIMINATE  
 Our working, according to which the share of the category of LPO is 60% in both 1982 and 1995, tells us that neither fact#1 nor fact #2 would be invalidated if what is stated in this option were negated. We can therefore eliminate this option as well.

Thus, (A) is the correct answer.

Kavicogsci · Answer

MartyMurray  is this a GMAT type Q - I absolutely couldnt crack it with even unlimited time. All the solutions also seem super mathematical.

MartyMurray · Answer

I think it's a fair example of a CR question that involves proportions.

In general, to be fully prepared for the GMAT, you need to be able to handle questions that involve proportions, and the key to handling them is to be able to see the logical implications of a statement involving proportions.

For example, let's consider the statements in the passage.

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.

In reading those statements, we need to be able to see that, if the number of people employed in low-paying service occupations will increase in absolute terms, but that category will not increase its share of total empolyment, then total employment is going to increase as well.

agrasan · Answer

I did this question using the logic of Quant and found it easier to conclude using this.

Let's assume:
1982 low-paying service people = A
1982 total employment = T
Rate of growth of low-paying = Rate of growth of total employment = x  (we are given in the passage that low-paying market share remained constant)

1982 high-paying service people = B
Rate of growth of high-paying = y

We are given that in 1995, share of high-paying increased from 1982:
B/T = (B(1+y))/(T(1+x))
 This means y > x------------(eq 1)

We are also given, greatest increase in number of people was for low-paying employees
So it has to be greater than an increase in high-paying employees
Ax > By
but y > x from eq1
so for Ax > By to hold true, A >> B

Thus, A >> B

(A) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations.
 Can conclude , using above equations, we can easily conclude this.

(B) In 1995 more people will be working in high-paying service occupations than will be working in low-paying service occupations.
 Cannot conclude , we don't have any info on how the mix will change.

(C) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982.
 Cannot conclude , this is not possible logically, we are given that low-paying share remained constant, high-paying share increased, if we assume only class remaining is non-service then its share has to be reduced.

(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.
 Cannot conclude , similar to B, we don't have enough info to conclude on migration of people from one class to another.

(E) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995.
 Cannot conclude , this contradicts the fact given to us, for low-paying service employment share to remain constant, rate of growth has to be same.

anushree01 · Answer

Thanks the solution was helpful for me

SRIVISHUDDHA22 · Answer

https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=88757 GMAT-Club-Forum-y58japye.png

dhairya18 · Answer

Step 1: Understand the Facts from the Text
​Fact 1 (Raw Numbers): Low-paying jobs will add the biggest raw number of workers (e.g., adding 20 people vs. adding 10 people).
​Fact 2 (Percentages):
​Low-paying jobs' share (percentage of the total workforce) will NOT grow.
​High-paying jobs' share (percentage of the total workforce) WILL grow.
​
Step 2: The Core Rule of Percentages
​To make a percentage grow, a small addition on a small starting number goes a long way.
​To make a percentage stay flat (or shrink), even a large addition requires a huge starting number.
​Let's test this with a simple math example.

​Step 3: A Concrete Example
​Suppose the total workforce in 1982 is 110 people.
​Scenario A: Low-Paying Jobs started with 100 people (a LARGE base in 1982)
​1982: 100 out of 110 workers = 90.9% share.
​Now add 20 new workers (a big raw increase).
​1995: Total workforce becomes 130. Low-paying workers become 120.
​New Share: 120 / 130 = 92.3% (Their share barely moved because the starting base was already so huge).
​Scenario B: High-Paying Jobs started with only 10 people (a SMALL base in 1982)
​1982: 10 out of 110 workers = 9.1% share.
​Now add only 10 new workers (a smaller raw increase than the 20 added to low-paying jobs).
​1995: Total workforce becomes 130. High-paying workers become 20.
​New Share: 20 / 130 = 15.4% (Their share jumped significantly from 9.1% to 15.4%).
​
Step 4: The Conclusion
​Look at what made this happen:
​Low-paying jobs got MORE new people (+20) than high-paying jobs (+10).
​Yet high-paying jobs INCREASED their share (from 9.1% to 15.4%), while low-paying jobs stayed virtually flat.
​The only way a smaller group of new hires (+10) can boost a group's total percentage share more than a larger group of new hires (+20) is if high-paying jobs started with a much smaller pool of workers in 1982.
​Therefore, in 1982, more people were working in low-paying service occupations than in high-paying ones. This directly proves (A).

Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest incre

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards