GMAT PREP CR27 Logical completion
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:18 am
- Location: United Kingdom
- Thanked: 5 times
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1153
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:21 am
- Thanked: 146 times
- Followed by:2 members
65 year olds - govt. concerned about their financial well-being
Govt - raises their pension 2 years ago by 20%
Their condition still remains the same as it was before.
A) if elders rely only on pension, there situation would have been a little better if not much - eliminate
B) Ok - banks take time - but in 2 years I think their situation would have been little better - eliminate
C) Inflation - the passage itself says there is negligible inflation - [remember this is a must be true question, so everything has to be taken from the passage itself] - eliminate
D) If the number [below poverty line] is all time high - they can take more time to recover from it - may be more than 2 years. - Answer.
E) if elders are supported by children to some extent - their [elders] situation would be a little better with increased pension. - eliminate
Hence D.
OA?
Govt - raises their pension 2 years ago by 20%
Their condition still remains the same as it was before.
A) if elders rely only on pension, there situation would have been a little better if not much - eliminate
B) Ok - banks take time - but in 2 years I think their situation would have been little better - eliminate
C) Inflation - the passage itself says there is negligible inflation - [remember this is a must be true question, so everything has to be taken from the passage itself] - eliminate
D) If the number [below poverty line] is all time high - they can take more time to recover from it - may be more than 2 years. - Answer.
E) if elders are supported by children to some extent - their [elders] situation would be a little better with increased pension. - eliminate
Hence D.
OA?
No rest for the Wicked....
- ronniecoleman
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:00 pm
- Location: New Delhi , India
- Thanked: 13 times
IMO E:
The conclusion says: better off financially!!
Think :
Elderly has 100 + children add 20 = 120 ( comfortable living)
Elderly has 110 + children add 10 = 120 ( comfortable living)
So essentially no change in the position:
But here i am making a small assumption that govt funding is not going beyond the comfortable living line...
The conclusion says: better off financially!!
Think :
Elderly has 100 + children add 20 = 120 ( comfortable living)
Elderly has 110 + children add 10 = 120 ( comfortable living)
So essentially no change in the position:
But here i am making a small assumption that govt funding is not going beyond the comfortable living line...
Admission champion, Hauz khaz
011-27565856
011-27565856
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1153
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:21 am
- Thanked: 146 times
- Followed by:2 members
Conclusion : No Better off financially!!!ronniecoleman wrote:IMO E:
The conclusion says: better off financially!!
Actually the increase is 20% not 10%ronniecoleman wrote: Think :
Elderly has 100 + children add 20 = 120 ( comfortable living)
Elderly has 110 + children add 10 = 120 ( comfortable living)
So essentially no change in the position:
But here i am making a small assumption that govt funding is not going beyond the comfortable living line...
Elderly has 100 + children add 20 = 120 ( comfortable living)
Elderly has 120 + children add 10 = 130 ( comfortable living)
Does this change their situation to some extent, IMO it definitely does; an increase of 8.3% is remarkable, these days even major developing economies are not expecting such growth just kidding
Let me know your thoughts.
No rest for the Wicked....
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1153
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:21 am
- Thanked: 146 times
- Followed by:2 members
Kindly share those analysis with us. We'd be delighted!!gl750raj wrote:Clearly E in my analysis. OA Please?
No rest for the Wicked....
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 833
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:56 am
- Thanked: 13 times
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:18 am
- Location: United Kingdom
- Thanked: 5 times
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 594
- Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
- Thanked: 12 times
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 6:44 pm
- Location: UK
- Thanked: 21 times
- Followed by:3 members
- GMAT Score:680
imo E
Why E
It states that children supplement the pensions of the elderly JUST by enough that the elderly can live comfortably.
This means that if the pension increases and inflation stays the same then contribution of children decreased.
This would result in no change for the elderly "financially". Hence, the increase in pension for the elderly had NO impact.
.
Why E
It states that children supplement the pensions of the elderly JUST by enough that the elderly can live comfortably.
This means that if the pension increases and inflation stays the same then contribution of children decreased.
This would result in no change for the elderly "financially". Hence, the increase in pension for the elderly had NO impact.
.
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:24 am
E as well.
D is wrong because when they are below poverty line and assuming no additional income. Below poverty+ 20% = Better than before financially.
D is wrong because when they are below poverty line and assuming no additional income. Below poverty+ 20% = Better than before financially.
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:24 am
E as well.
D is wrong because when they are below poverty line and assuming no additional income. Below poverty+ 20% = Better than before financially.
D is wrong because when they are below poverty line and assuming no additional income. Below poverty+ 20% = Better than before financially.