Critical Reasoning

Demographers doing research for an international economics newsletter claim that the average per capita income in the country of Kuptala is substantially lower than that in the country of Bahlton. They also claim, however, that whereas poverty is relatively rare in Kuptala, over half the population of Bahlton lives in extreme poverty. At least one of the demographers’ claims must, therefore, be wrong.
The argument above is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It rejects an empirical claim about the average per capita incomes in the two countries without making any attempt to discredit that claim by offering additional economic evidence.
(B) It treats the vague term “poverty” as though it had a precise and universally accepted meaning.
(C) It overlooks the possibility that the number of people in the two countries who live in poverty could be the same even though the percentages of the two populations that live in poverty differ markedly.
(D) It fails to show that wealth and poverty have the same social significance in Kuptala as in Bahlton.
(E) It does not consider the possibility that incomes in Kuptala, unlike those in Bahlton, might all be very close to the country’s average per capita income.


Pls explain your answers. OA to follow.

IMO C

For ex: if Kutpala has 1000 ppl and Bahlton has 100 ppl.

According to claim: 50+ ppl are in poverty in Bahlton.

Let the no. of ppl in poverty in Kutpala be 90. Now, Even though more no. of ppl are in poverty in Kutpala, it can still be said that poverty is rare in Kutpala, since 90/1000 is very less percentage.

IMO E
beacuse even though the avg per capita income in country A is less than country B but it could be that most of the people in country A lie close to the country A's avg per capita income whereas in country B there are a lot of outliers both on the higher as well as lower side....

IMO A. E is a close second. Had E been about Bahlton's incomes it'd have been convnicing. But then A is vague

I have encountered these situations so many times.. the toughest one's to understand would be right many a times
Should understand the depth within 1.5 minutes

I am caught between C & E.

IMHO Option A looks very abstract and subjective.Can anybody pls clarify.

What is the OA ??

IMO - C

My initial thought without reading the answers was that the critique had to do either with the definition of poverty or outliers in B that brought the average up. After reading answer B, I have to go with E.

Another vote for E. I think C is incorrect because it deals in absolute terms, which we arent concerned with.

E for me. If most of the people have incomes very close to the per capita income, then not many would be living below the poverty line. There isn't too many higher or lower income earning population

For the City B, argument says that many people have income which is not close to the per capita, and that implies that there is too much concentration in higher and lower income group.

I will definitely go for C as the number of people can be same but poor people are like 1% in Kuptala compared to 50% of Bahlton e.g. being that if Bahlton has 100 people and 50 are poor whereas Kuptala has 5000 people and 50 are poor.
Still Avg per capita income can be less in Kuptala than avg per capita income of Bahlton for obvious reasons.

Similar kind of statement is given in E as well but that can be rejected on the basis of word "all"
E - It does not consider the possibility that incomes in Kuptala, unlike those in Bahlton, might all be very close to the country’s average per capita income.

If all of Kuptala people are close to avg per capita income, then no one is poor. But in the initial sentence, it is given that "poverty is relatively rare" which means that poverty is present. So we can avoid E as it is creating doubts.

OA - E does makes sense. Tx for the explanation guys!!

Please explain this one.

Thanks.

Since we talk more abt average per capita income. thinking mathematically

A: 10,0,0,0,0 A's avg:2
B: 1,1,1,1,1 B's avg: 1

say we fix the poverty line at 0.5(say), B <<< A. A has more ppl below poverty line than B.

But PercapitaIncome Avg of A > B. A has more outlier values.

Ans :Option E clearly states this. all members have income close to percapita avg.

Options C mixes Number and Percentages. If No of people below poverty line remains same, Population of larger than Bahlton. But doesn't affect PCI as individual incomes might vary.

E clearly a vulnerable criticism.