BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

U.S census

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:10 am

U.S census

by subhasis8877 » Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:12 am
The U.S. census is not perfect: thousands of Americans probably go uncounted. However, the basic statistical portrait of the nation painted by the census is accurate. Certainly some of the poor go uncounted, particularly the homeless; but some of the rich go uncounted as well, because they are often abroad or traveling between one residence and another.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?
(A) Both the rich and the poor have personal and economic reasons to avoid being counted by the census.
(B) All Americans may reasonably be classified as either poor or rich.
(C) The percentage of poor Americans uncounted by the census is close to the percentage of rich Americans uncounted.
(D) The number of homeless Americans is approximately equal to the number of rich Americans.
(E) The primary purpose of the census is to analyze the economic status of the American population.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:10 am

by asantosh1 » Wed Apr 01, 2009 11:19 am
B.

OA?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:10 am

by subhasis8877 » Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:37 am
OA is C. Any explanations ?
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:10 am
Location: Boston, MA

by thought » Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:48 pm
My rephrasing of the argument:

Because both some of the poor and some of the rich are uncounted, the basic statistical portrait of the nation painted by the census is accurate.

IMO, the main assumption here is that the proportions of poor and rich are equal. (If the proportions of poor and rich are NOT equal then the statistical portrait must be INaccurate.)

There does seem to be an assumption about the middle class (something to the effect of the middle class not being at the core of the census' accuracy or inaccuracy) but its a weaker one.

(A) Irrelevant to the argument, the argument doesn't assume this and certainly doesn't depend on this.
(B) Don't immediately eliminate but ultimately the argument doesn't depend on this. If the opposite is true (All Americans may NOT reasonably be classified as either poor or rich) the argument can still proceed.
(C) Exactly what we're looking for.
(D) Trick answer. First we only care about those UNCOUNTED. Second, we want proportion NOT raw volumes.
(E) The argument doesn't depend on this. If the opposite is true (The primary purpose of the census is NOT to analyze the economic status of the American population) the argument can still proceed.

Does this help?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:10 am

by subhasis8877 » Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:21 pm
How one can assume "some of the poor and some of the rich are uncounted," means the proportion of Rich and Poor are equal ?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:50 am

by delhiboy1979 » Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:18 pm
I think it should be B, how can C be correct.

Unless we know the fixed number how can we confirm the percentages for both divisions unless we know the total figure.

say we have 10% who go unaccounted on both sides
E.g Total rich - 100 - unaccounted - 10
Total poor - 200 - unaccounted - 20

No, I think B is correct.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:10 am
Location: Boston, MA

by thought » Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:27 am
How one can assume "some of the poor and some of the rich are uncounted," means the proportion of Rich and Poor are equal ?
Sorry, I left out something that is pretty important:

The main assumption here is that the proportions of UNCOUNTED poor and UNCOUNTED rich are equal. (If the proportions of UNCOUNTED poor and UNCOUNTED rich are NOT equal/close then the statistical portrait must be INaccurate.)

Suppose that 90% of the poor are uncounted but only 1% of the rich are uncounted, then the statistical portrait is inaccurate because it under-represents the poor (or over-represents the rich).

Basically, the statement "some of the poor and some of the rich are uncounted" assumes that the "SOME" is equal for both in percentage/proportion terms.


I think it should be B, how can C be correct.
I think C and then B are the best answers and one way to be sure tha tthe right answer is not (B) is to negate it.

If (B) is correct the argument should fall apart if you negate it but if "All Americans may NOT reasonably be classified as either poor or rich", the argument is still valid because it only looks at the Americans that ARE poor or rick. (B) is a bit out of scope.

On the other hand, if you negate (C) "The percentage of poor Americans uncounted by the census is NOT close to the percentage of rich Americans uncounted", the argument falls apart because the conclusion doesn't logically follow. If you count a higher percentage of poor people than rich people (or vice versa) then the statistical portrait cannot be accurate because its skewed one way or the other.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:33 am

by kris77 » Fri May 13, 2016 10:35 pm
Cannot decide between c and B. Can anyone brake down these two choices for me please
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1