GMAT PREP CR27 Logical completion

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?

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...

Clearly E in my analysis. OA Please?

ronniecoleman wrote:IMO E:
The conclusion says: better off financially!!

Conclusion : No Better off financially!!!

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...

Actually the increase is 20% not 10%


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.

gl750raj wrote:Clearly E in my analysis. OA Please?

Kindly share those analysis with us. We'd be delighted!!

1 more vote for D.

poonam1279 wrote:Need help with this CR

Post the OA please!

Hi All,
The OA is E. Please share your analysis for E.
Many Thanks

should be E

nice explanation ronnie....

a good explanation in GMAT style CRs is simply - P.O.E !

lol

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.
.

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.

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.

Guys, I still do not understand the logic of E.
Can somebody help me?