option D -> as the avg of both X and Y is > thn the total company's avg, thr must be some number of people who earn less than 50k to bring the avg dwn to 45k.

B - it can very well be tht there is only one X and one Y or 3 X, 2 Y - this cant be concluded frm the info given.
any specific doubt abt B?

Hey blaster,

Here's how I broke it down:

Conclusion: Avg. annual salary for ALL employees was $45,000

Evidence: avg sal attorneys is $75,000, and avg. sal paralegals is $50,000

Assumptions: Average = Total Sum / # of terms, so the average of the attorneys and the paralegals together would be $60,000. Since the average salary is less than that, then there must be significant # of employees who are making less than $45,000.

Question Rephrase: What is TRUE based on the evidence?

Prediction: There must be some more poorly-paid employees.

The answer is D.

B is incorrect because it does not HAVE to be true that there were more paralegals than attorneys. There could be the exact same number of paralegals as attorneys. What is weighting the average down to $45,000 is the fact that there is an unaccounted for number of employees making LESS than what the paralegals make.

@ vivann kerr - how do we get the average = 60000 of paralegals and atorrneys as per u say.
plz clarify
thnks

@swweta We are told that the average of the attorneys is $75,000 and the avg. of the paralegals is $50,000.

I used the average formula:

Average = Total sum / # of terms

Average = 75,000 + 50,000 / 2

Average = $60,000

Another way to think of it is that 60,000 is exactly halfway between 75,000 and 50,000.

But since we are told the ACTUAL average is 45,000, then there must be other employees who make less money and are this weighing the total average down.

VivianKerr wrote:@swweta We are told that the average of the attorneys is $75,000 and the avg. of the paralegals is $50,000.

I used the average formula:

Average = Total sum / # of terms

Average = 75,000 + 50,000 / 2

Average = $60,000

Another way to think of it is that 60,000 is exactly halfway between 75,000 and 50,000.

But since we are told the ACTUAL average is 45,000, then there must be other employees who make less money and are this weighing the total average down.

Note that we can't actually use the average formula in this way because we don't know that the contributions of the two groups are equal. If the ratio (of the number of attorneys to the number of paralegals) is anything other than 1:1, we would have to use the weighted average formula.

(Also, 60 is NOT exactly halfway between 75 and 50).

But this:

But since we are told the ACTUAL average is 45,000, then there must be other employees who make less money and are this weighing the total average down.

is absolutely correct, and is in fact the key deduction. If the average of ALL employees is less than that of both attorneys and paralegals, then there must be some remaining (and lower-earning!) employees to compensate.

Finally, I would just point out that in an inference question, there is little value in dividing the text into conclusion and evidence; better to treat the whole passage as true information (i.e., as evidence).