The percentage of people between the age of 18 and 24 living with thei

Question

The percentage of people between the age of 18 and 24 living with their parents increased from 48% in 1980 to 53% in 1986. It can be concluded that in 1986 it was harder for people in this age bgroup to afford to live by themselves.

The conclusion drawn in the passage above depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. People in this age group who couldn't afford to live by themselves preferred living with people their own age to living with parents.

B. There are people in this age group who, if they could have afforded to do so, would have chosen to live by themselves, rather than with their parents.

C. People in this age group who lived with their parents didn't make any ginancial contribution toward housing expenses.

D. The number of rental housing units suitable for single people dropped between 1980 and 1986.

E. There are people in this age group who although they lived with their parents at the time of survey, had previously lived alone.

J2S2019 · Answer

Though seeing the parcentages in the question i initially had a thought that the answer choices will deal with actual number ambiguities but here it is not the case.

The answer is B

Now if we negate the answer choice, we clearly ended up shattering the conclusion.

IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT - There are people in this age group who, if they could have afforded to do so, would have chosen to live by themselves, rather than with their parents.

Now if it is so, then the conclusion is no more valid.

Correct assumption is B

Posted from my mobile device

globaldesi · Answer

B is the perfect assumption
as if we negate it
 There are people in this age group who, if they could have afforded to do so, would  not  have chosen to live by themselves, rather than with their parents.
this weakens the conclusion that people people prefer to stay without financial burden also.
Thus B

Kinshook · Answer

B. There are people in this age group who, if they could have afforded to do so, would have chosen to live by themselves, rather than with their parents.

If we apply negation test and negate B, the conclusion fall apart.

IMO B

napolean92728 · Answer

Correct Answer: B 
The argument claims that an increase in the percentage of young adults (18–24) living with their parents from 48% in 1980 to 53% in 1986 indicates that it became harder for them to afford to live independently.

This conclusion assumes that at least some people in this age group would have chosen to live alone if they could afford it. Otherwise, the increase in young adults living with parents could have been due to personal preference rather than financial difficulty.

Thus, option B is the correct answer because it directly supports the assumption that affordability played a role in this trend.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:  
 A. People in this age group who couldn't afford to live by themselves preferred living with people their own age to living with parents. 
This assumption is about whom young adults preferred to live with, not about why they were living with their parents.
Even if young adults preferred to live with their peers, it does not necessarily relate to financial hardship. The argument is about affordability, not preference.
Eliminated because it does not support the conclusion that affordability was the reason for the trend.
 C. People in this age group who lived with their parents didn't make any financial contribution toward housing expenses. 
Whether or not they contributed financially does not affect the conclusion that it became harder for them to afford independent living.
Even if they paid part of their parents’ rent or expenses, the key issue is whether they could afford to live alone.
Eliminated because the argument does not depend on whether they contributed to household expenses.
 D. The number of rental housing units suitable for single people dropped between 1980 and 1986. 
 A drop in rental housing availability could explain why more young adults stayed with their parents, but this assumption focuses on housing supply rather than affordability. 
The argument is about financial difficulty, not housing availability. If fewer units were available, that does not necessarily mean they were less affordable.
Eliminated because it introduces a different potential cause (housing availability) rather than supporting the affordability claim.
 E. There are people in this age group who, although they lived with their parents at the time of the survey, had previously lived alone. 
This statement may be true, but it does not explain why more people were living with their parents in 1986 than in 1980.
It does not establish whether affordability was the reason for moving back home.
Eliminated because it does not confirm that financial hardship was the cause of the trend.

The percentage of people between the age of 18 and 24 living with thei

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

The percentage of people between the age of 18 and 24 living with thei

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