Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
50% (02:00) correct
50%
(02:13)
wrong
based on 295
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
It appears that the number of people employed by a typical American software firm decreased in the 1980s and 1990s. This trend is borne out by two studies, conducted 20 years apart. In a large 1980 sample of randomly chosen American software firms, the median size of the firms* workforce populations was 65. When those same firms were studied again in 2000. the median size was 57.
Which of the following points to the most serious logical flaw in the reasoning above?
A. The median number of employees in American firms in many industries decreased during the 1980s and 1990s.
B. During the 1980s and 1990s. many software firms increased the extent to which they relied on subcontractors to write code.
C. The data in the studies refer only to companies that existed in 1980.
D. Tile studies focused on the number of employees, but there are many ways of judging a firm’s size. such as revenues and profits.
E. The median number of employees is not as sound a measure of the number of employees employed in an industry as is the mean number of employees, which accounts for the vast size of the few large firms that dominate most industries.
Untitled.jpg [ 80.51 KiB | Viewed 7290 times ]
Hey everyone.
Please let me know how you separate between C and E.
i understand why C is right, but still dont understand why E is wrong.
Lets say i had in 1980 three companies - that all had 50 workers.
and in 2000 - we have one company with 2 workers, one company with 5 workers and one company with 1,000,000 workers. the median will be lower but the total number of workers will be higher in 2000 than in 1980.
Am i missing something?
thanks.
Which of the following points to the most serious logical flaw in the reasoning above?
A. The median number of employees in American firms in many industries decreased during the 1980s and 1990s.
B. During the 1980s and 1990s. many software firms increased the extent to which they relied on subcontractors to write code.
C. The data in the studies refer only to companies that existed in 1980.
D. Tile studies focused on the number of employees, but there are many ways of judging a firm’s size. such as revenues and profits.
E. The median number of employees is not as sound a measure of the number of employees employed in an industry as is the mean number of employees, which accounts for the vast size of the few large firms that dominate most industries.
Attachment:
Untitled.jpg [ 80.51 KiB | Viewed 7290 times ]
Hey everyone.
Please let me know how you separate between C and E.
i understand why C is right, but still dont understand why E is wrong.
Lets say i had in 1980 three companies - that all had 50 workers.
and in 2000 - we have one company with 2 workers, one company with 5 workers and one company with 1,000,000 workers. the median will be lower but the total number of workers will be higher in 2000 than in 1980.
Am i missing something?
thanks.
02 Jul 2011, 05:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
The argument says the 'typical' software firm employs fewer people now than in 1980. That conclusion is based on a study which compares the number of employees in 1980 and now at the *same* firms. The study thus ignores any firms that came into existence after 1980. Those newer firms might be today's 'typical' software firms, so you can't just ignore them, which is why C is correct.
E is not correct; if you want to work out what is 'typical', you normally want to look at the median and not the average. The average takes into account wildly extreme values (that is, values which are *not* 'typical'), and the median does not. For example, if some entrepreneur making $10 billion per year were to buy a house in an otherwise low-income neighbourhood, the average annual income in that neighbourhood would be enormous, because that $10 billion would make a significant contribution to the sum of the incomes in the neighbourhood. The average would not represent the 'typical' income level for that neighbourhood. The median would, however, represent in some way the typical income, since (being a bit imprecise) half of people will earn more than the median, and half will earn less. The presence of one extreme income in the neighbourhood barely affects the median at all. So for the argument in question, you genuinely do want to look at the median and not the average precisely because you do not want some extreme values to distort your statistics.
E is not correct; if you want to work out what is 'typical', you normally want to look at the median and not the average. The average takes into account wildly extreme values (that is, values which are *not* 'typical'), and the median does not. For example, if some entrepreneur making $10 billion per year were to buy a house in an otherwise low-income neighbourhood, the average annual income in that neighbourhood would be enormous, because that $10 billion would make a significant contribution to the sum of the incomes in the neighbourhood. The average would not represent the 'typical' income level for that neighbourhood. The median would, however, represent in some way the typical income, since (being a bit imprecise) half of people will earn more than the median, and half will earn less. The presence of one extreme income in the neighbourhood barely affects the median at all. So for the argument in question, you genuinely do want to look at the median and not the average precisely because you do not want some extreme values to distort your statistics.
General Discussion
