Kuptala and Bahlton

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:25 am
Thanked: 21 times

Kuptala and Bahlton

by reachac » Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:21 am
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.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 64
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:42 am
Location: Italy
Thanked: 1 times

by Carlo75 » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:21 am
I will go with E

(A) may be tempting it seems to me too vague. In addition, I am not sure if a data about income per capita can be defined impirical claim ...
(B) out of the scope
(C) we are dealing with per capita income so the number of poor people in the two country is not rilevant
(D) out of the scope
(E) since the annual income per capita is equal to the country total revenue divided by number of citizens of that country we can have a country A in which the wealth is more spread than in country B but at same time the country A can have a smaller income per capita than country B but with a fewer number of poor people. CORRECT

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:26 pm
Thanked: 10 times

by newera » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:55 am
yikes! tough question

I think A or E.

A--
B--I think poverty has a generally accepted meaning..but this is off topic.
C--percents eliminate the issue of number per people
D--don't care
E--

If I had to make a choice, I would choose E only because the "additional economic evidence" could include irrelevant info...

Legendary Member
Posts: 708
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 4:59 am
Location: USA
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:1 members

by niraj_a » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:15 am
C or E, and I choose E.

User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 1:43 am

by suchit » Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm
I would go with E

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

by khanshainur » Wed May 11, 2016 12:37 am
E seems to be the best choice here