It is currently 17 Jan 2018, 10:25

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 868 [6], given: 5

Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jul 2014, 11:53
6
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
sivaspurthy wrote:
Hi
The marriage rate is 110 per thousand not 110%....but i donot understand how the OA is A....for me it was the best of the worsts... sort of option...eventhouh the average age has been increased the marriages after 16 years of age are taken into the consideration....so i donot see A as a fit

regards
siva

I love your comment about choice A...it certainly is the only thing left standing when you eliminate the obviously wrong answers. It's a deceptively effective answer, though. Choice A states that that average age has increased DRAMATICALLY over the past 20 years. The statistics presented in the argument show that the marriage rate has decreased dramatically from 1962 to 2012 and the author concludes that if the trend continues no women will be getting married by 2050. The flaw in the argument is that we haven't looked at how changes in the average age of marriage might impact the current marriage rate. If 20 years ago the average age of marriage was 20 (I'm making this number up but it's somewhat based on the "dramatic" increase cited in choice A) and now the average age of marriage is 40, you have a lot of woman who haven't decided to not get married, they just decided to postpone marriage. That would lead to a large group of women who are in the "pending marriage" state and we would need to wait for another 20 years to see if the marriage rate stabilizes (assuming no more dramatic increases in the marriage age).

Here is a comparison that may help to illustrate this phenomenon. Let's say I'm watching people walking out of a subway station. I'm counting people per minute and I'm at 40 people per minute for the first 20 minutes, then for the next 10 minutes the number slows to 10 people per minute. I conclude that the flow is slowing and pretty soon no one will be walking by. What really happened (in my made up world) is that most of the trains were delayed through some malfunction of the train system. These people will walk by eventually, they've just been delayed. The train delay can be compared with the "marriage delay", or the increase in the average age of marriage. Those marriages very well may still happen, they just may be delayed.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Kudos [?]: 868 [6], given: 5

Retired Moderator
Status: On a mountain of skulls, in the castle of pain, I sit on a throne of blood.
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 359

Kudos [?]: 228 [2], given: 133

UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2014, 06:28
2
KUDOS
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is the percentage of adult women over 16 who get married for the first time each year) fell from 110 marriages a year per 1,000 unmarried women to just 37, a stunning 66 percent decline. Given this trend, there will likely be no women getting married for the first time by 2050!

Which of the following, if true, exposes a flaw in the sociologist’s reasoning?

A. The average age of marriage has increased dramatically in the past 20 years.
B. Today’s divorce rates are expected to rise dramatically over the next 40 years.
C. More women are expected to get married for a second and third time in the next 40 years.
D. Many women are deciding to simply live with their partners rather than get married.
E. Marriage is much less likely to occur today for the first time than it was in the 1960’s.

Kudos [?]: 228 [2], given: 133

Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2013
Posts: 66

Kudos [?]: 96 [2], given: 298

Location: United States
Concentration: Other, Finance
Schools: SDSU '16
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V34
GPA: 2.76
WE: Analyst (Real Estate)
UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2014, 10:12
2
KUDOS
Got confused on this one ! haven't found a convincing answer choice
I don't see how A can be right :s
We are talking about girls aged 16 and above getting married for the first time, how would an age increase influence the data?
can someone explain ?
thank you
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

Kudos [?]: 96 [2], given: 298

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1124

Kudos [?]: 3670 [2], given: 123

Location: United States
Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2014, 12:22
2
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
clipea12 wrote:
Got confused on this one ! haven't found a convincing answer choice
I don't see how A can be right :s
We are talking about girls aged 16 and above getting married for the first time, how would an age increase influence the data?
can someone explain ?
thank you

Hello clipea12

The fact that women who did not get married in 2012 does not mean they will NOT get married in 2050. On the other hand, those women just delay their marriage until 2050. It makes the average marriage age increase. That's the flaw of the author's conclusion.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Kudos [?]: 3670 [2], given: 123

Retired Moderator
Status: On a mountain of skulls, in the castle of pain, I sit on a throne of blood.
Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Posts: 359

Kudos [?]: 228 [0], given: 133

Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2014, 23:38
@pghai : Aren't we assuming that the women we are talking about are all in the same age-group. If the avg age of women at marriage is now older then there will definitely be some older women in 2012 who would be ready to get married. My main problem with this question is that, I feel, there is a lot of assuming that we need to do.

Kudos [?]: 228 [0], given: 133

Intern
Joined: 08 Oct 2014
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 30

UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2014, 03:32
Here the percentage is a specific, it includes every women over 16 years of age,getting married for the first time, therefore even if the average age of marriage increases the percentage change would account for it. The options all seem to be vague.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 30

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 868 [1], given: 5

Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2014, 14:42
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
Yes, actual numbers are given for the percentages, but that doesn't mean there is only one explanation for the change in percentage. There are at least 2 reasons why the average number of first time marriages decreased: 1) less people are getting married 2) the average age of marriage is increasing. The correct answer states that there was a dramatic increase in the average age of marriage so the conclusion that the marriage rate is trending to zero (attributing 100% of the change to less people getting married) cannot be true.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Kudos [?]: 868 [1], given: 5

Manager
Joined: 17 Dec 2013
Posts: 60

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 35

GMAT Date: 01-08-2015
Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Dec 2014, 00:44
UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is the percentage of adult women over 16 who get married for the first time each year) fell from 110 marriages a year per 1,000 unmarried women to just 37, a stunning 66 percent decline. Given this trend, there will likely be no women getting married for the first time by 2050!

For me A makes no sense, since we are looking for the woman who get married for the first time!
So even if they marriage exists for 1 hour or for 100 years, the second time these woman get married they don't count into the statistics.

Which of the following, if true, exposes a flaw in the sociologist’s reasoning?

E explains that the the author has a flaw because womand still get married, but not for their first but for their second or third of fourth time.

E) Marriage is much less likely to occur today for the first time than it was in the 1960’s.

KyleWiddison what do you think about the bolded sentence?

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 35

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 868 [0], given: 5

Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Dec 2014, 08:39
I'm not sure what the question is. It looks like the bolded portion is the "marriage for the first time". They use the "first" time language because they want to focus on one marriage for each women - you can't have a second marriage until you have a first.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Kudos [?]: 868 [0], given: 5

Manager
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 115

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 183

Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2014, 22:57
Why not D ? Between A and D , i chose D because as women opted not to marry, the rate decreased .

But it still undermines the conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 183

MBA Blogger
Joined: 19 Apr 2014
Posts: 103

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 59

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
Schools: NTU '19
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2014, 17:54
tuanquang269 wrote:
This is my new project: Renew Old Thread => Back to basic => Just try It and give your reasoning

UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is the percentage of adult women over 16 who get married for the first time each year) fell from 110 marriages a year per 1,000 unmarried women to just 37, a stunning 66 percent decline. Given this trend, there will likely be no women getting married for the first time by 2050!

Which of the following, if true, exposes a flaw in the sociologist’s reasoning?

A) The average age of marriage has increased dramatically in the past 20 years.
B) Today’s divorce rates are expected to rise dramatically over the next 40 years.
C) More women are expected to get married for a second and third time in the next 40 years.
D) Many women are deciding to simply live with their partners rather than get married.
E) Marriage is much less likely to occur today for the first time than it was in the 1960’s.

I was also in confusion between A and D, I chose A because: 'D' says "Many women are deciding....." Many could be 10 out of 100!! Then this explanation would not be correct.
I hope I am correct.
_________________

Warm Regards.
Visit My Blog

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 59

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 798

Kudos [?]: 868 [0], given: 5

Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2014, 09:46
Answer choice D doesn't expose a flaw in the argument - it's supportive of the argument. If people are deciding to live together instead of marry the author's conclusion could be correct that people may end up never getting married in the future.

Remember what you are trying to do in the argument - both A and D are highly relevant to the conclusion but we want to weaken (choice A) not strengthen (choice D).

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Kudos [?]: 868 [0], given: 5

Manager
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Posts: 70

Kudos [?]: 24 [1], given: 20

Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2015, 09:05
1
KUDOS
AmoyV wrote:
UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is the percentage of adult women over 16 who get married for the first time each year) fell from 110 marriages a year per 1,000 unmarried women to just 37, a stunning 66 percent decline. Given this trend, there will likely be no women getting married for the first time by 2050!

Which of the following, if true, exposes a flaw in the sociologist’s reasoning?

A. The average age of marriage has increased dramatically in the past 20 years.
B. Today’s divorce rates are expected to rise dramatically over the next 40 years.
C. More women are expected to get married for a second and third time in the next 40 years.
D. Many women are deciding to simply live with their partners rather than get married.
E. Marriage is much less likely to occur today for the first time than it was in the 1960’s.

Typical percentage / number question. Didn't look like a 700 level question. Anyways my take is Option A
Approach explained below:
Marriage rate fell from 110 marriages a year per 1,000 unmarried woman to 37. Hence author concluded that no women will likely be getting married first time by 2050. We need to look for an option that explains some other for the percentage decrease without impacting the woman numbers.

Only option A states that. The average age of marriage has increased dramatically in the past 20 years (initially it was 16). Hence, though the woman are available, but the women legal to married is decreased. But no way we can predict that the number of woman is decreasing

Option B, C, D, E are not all relevant. You can easily spot that

Thanks,
Chanakya

Hit kudos if you like the explanation.

Kudos [?]: 24 [1], given: 20

Intern
Joined: 16 Apr 2015
Posts: 45

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 73

Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Schools: UFlorida '18, UFL '17
Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2015, 15:14
Can someone explain why not D.

Isnt is somehow providing an alternate explanation for why there may be no women who would be married for the first time in 2050.Option A states that the average age may increase.So basically the women will still be above 16.

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 73

Intern
Joined: 28 Jul 2015
Posts: 12

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 4

Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2015, 21:45
vinnisatija wrote:
Can someone explain why not D.

Isnt is somehow providing an alternate explanation for why there may be no women who would be married for the first time in 2050.Option A states that the average age may increase.So basically the women will still be above 16.

hi friend
i too have marked D as the answer but later on i realized that D is strengthening the argument

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 4

Intern
Joined: 18 Aug 2015
Posts: 8

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

Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2015, 10:26
I felt that this was a tricky one (even though i got it right ). D is the only other tempting option but if you connect it with argument it actually strengthens the argument which is that no women will get married in 2050

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

Intern
Joined: 12 Oct 2014
Posts: 8

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

Location: United States
Concentration: Real Estate, Finance
Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2015, 10:31
Marriage rate % women > 16 years Rate from 110/1000 to 37/1000 = 66% Decrease.

Therefore, any flaw should be related to the factors mentioned above.
A.- This tell us age has increased. So Maybe all Women have a pact and are waiting to get married probably in a 100 years. Sounds good, but let's read the other ones. This could be a factor the author never took into account.
B.- Divorce rate? Adding that rate doesn't add anything to the factors above.
C.- Second Third? Out of scope. That only explains what happens to already married women.
D.-That is an explanation to not get married not a flaw. That strengthens the Author's Claim.
E.- Same as option C. This only justifies the current situation, and does not expose any flaw.

Best regards,
Ricardo

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

Intern
Joined: 20 Aug 2015
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 11

Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012, the marriage rate (that is th [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Oct 2015, 23:45
AmoyV wrote:
@pghai : Aren't we assuming that the women we are talking about are all in the same age-group. If the avg age of women at marriage is now older then there will definitely be some older women in 2012 who would be ready to get married. My main problem with this question is that, I feel, there is a lot of assuming that we need to do.

I think one reasoning could be that because (acc. to A) the average age of marriage has increased dramatically, the now older women already got married first time when they were young and the now younger women will get married later on. This can explain the decline but will not support the Sociologist's reasoning that by 2050 there will be no women getting married for the first time because these now young women probably will be. I hope this makes sense!

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 11

Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2718

Kudos [?]: 462 [0], given: 210

Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Nov 2015, 19:35
I don't agree with the wording of the choice A.
It can be inferred that the average age of marriage has increased or that the period during which people are married has increased. In this case, choice A is out of scope and has no effect on the conclusion.

Kudos [?]: 462 [0], given: 210

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4640

Kudos [?]: 9268 [0], given: 116

Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Nov 2015, 10:24
mvictor wrote:
I don't agree with the wording of the choice A.
It can be inferred that the average age of marriage has increased or that the period during which people are married has increased. In this case, choice A is out of scope and has no effect on the conclusion.

Dear mvictor,

I'm happy to respond. My friend, be careful not to change the requirements on the answer. What the prompt question asks is "Which of the following, if true, exposes a flaw in the sociologist’s reasoning?" There is absolutely no reason to expect that we can infer the OA from the prompt. The standard of inference is a very high bar on the GMAT, and the OA is not required to reach that bar. All that we ask is that the OA weaken the argument.

In this problem, the UCLA Sociologist makes her argument. Then, from another source, we hear the information: "The average age of marriage has increased dramatically in the past 20 years." This is new information, not something we could infer from the prompt. The question is not how we know this new information or why it is true: all that would be irrelevant. Let's just suppose that we hear this information from a reliable and trustworthy source. Then, if this new piece of information is true, would it weaken the prompt argument? That's the question we need to address for each answer choice in this problem.

In any "which of the following, if true" question, the OA is going to be something new and out-of-left-field, something that could not have been deduced from the information in the prompt. The question is never why this new piece of information is true: that is always strictly irrelevant. We simply have to assume that it is true, and then, if it is true, answer the prompt question.

I have already given an argument about why (A) is the OA of this excellent question. The brilliant Karishma has also given an argument. If you don't understand these arguments, please be very specific in your question about what you don't understand.

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)

Kudos [?]: 9268 [0], given: 116

Re: UCLA Sociologist: Between 1962 and 2012   [#permalink] 17 Nov 2015, 10:24

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 53 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by