Elderly citizens

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:56 am
Thanked: 2 times

Elderly citizens

by apple100 » Sun May 10, 2009 6:26 am
Concerned about financial well-being of its elderly citizens, the government of Runagia decided two years ago to increase by 20 percent the government-provided pensionpaid to all Runagians over 65. Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible,and the increase has been duly received by all eligible Runagians. Nevertheless,many of them are no better off financially than they were before the increase, in large part because ________.

A. They rely entirely on the government pension for their income
B. Runagian banks are so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks to cash a pension check
C. They buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of
inflation
D. The pension was increased when the number of elderly Runagians below the poverty level reached an all-time high
E. In Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough to provide them with a comfortable living.


OA is E. Please explain the logic behind this.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 1:17 am
Location: Rourkela/Hyderabad
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by sanp_l » Sun May 10, 2009 7:20 am
B and C go too far in assuming.

Had all of them relied only on the pension, an increase would have helped improve them financially. Hence A can be discarded.

The passage states of minimum inflation rates during the concerned phase and hence D can be discarded.

In E we have a possible option. The option supports the fact that an increase might just not be enough to improve the financial condition.
Sandy

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:48 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:740

Re: Elderly citizens

by 2010gmat » Sun May 10, 2009 9:35 am
apple100 wrote:Concerned about financial well-being of its elderly citizens, the government of Runagia decided two years ago to increase by 20 percent the government-provided pensionpaid to all Runagians over 65. Inflation in the intervening period has been negligible,and the increase has been duly received by all eligible Runagians. Nevertheless,many of them are no better off financially than they were before the increase, in large part because ________.

A. They rely entirely on the government pension for their income--- if so then their financial condition shud improve given the fact that inflation has been negligible....so this is not the answerB. Runagian banks are so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks to cash a pension check---3 weeks !!! the govt increased pensions 2 years ago --- b is also not good
C. They buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of
inflation --- inflation is negligible --- c does not hold goood
D. The pension was increased when the number of elderly Runagians below the poverty level reached an all-time high --- if pension was increased for ppl below poverty line then their condition shud improve
E. In Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough to provide them with a comfortable living.

suppose earlier elderly ppl were getting $ 80 from govt and they needed $120 to live comfortably enough .. their children paid them $40 ...

now govt is paying them 20% more i.e = $96 ...and inflation is negligible so they still need $120 ... now their children will pay only ENOUGH amount to make their life comfortable --- their children will now pay $24 ..so net net elder ppl still get $120 -- and hence the answer



OA is E. Please explain the logic behind this.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 9:35 am
Location: India
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:710

by vishal1702 » Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:44 am
I wld like to open this post again....

I know the OA but I still think C shld b d correct answer...

In apple100's assumption if v suppose elderly people were getting 100$ (instead of 80$) but needed 120$ to live comfortably enough...add to this 20% which makes the pension as 120$, which is sufficient to live comfortably without children help...
so E is inconclusive...

As for C, it doesn't mean that if inflation is negligible, then there won't b ne goods in the market whose prices can't rise.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:25 pm
Answer should be 'E' because let's say that pension was $500 and children were supporting parents by providing the additional money for a comfortable living but now after 20% increase elderly people have reached the amount of that comfortable living or they are very close to that amount, so the children must have stopped or reduced the monetary support.

therefore even after the increase nothing will change..

I went for 'D' but after a second shot I feel E is correct.
vishal1702 wrote:I wld like to open this post again....

I know the OA but I still think C shld b d correct answer...

In apple100's assumption if v suppose elderly people were getting 100$ (instead of 80$) but needed 120$ to live comfortably enough...add to this 20% which makes the pension as 120$, which is sufficient to live comfortably without children help...
so E is inconclusive...

As for C, it doesn't mean that if inflation is negligible, then there won't b ne goods in the market whose prices can't rise.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:26 am

by khanshainur » Sun May 15, 2016 11:57 pm
I will Go with option C in this case

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:20 am

by Eric77Gorm » Mon May 16, 2016 12:02 am
Option C looks good than other answers.