Critical Reasoning

In 1980, 13 percent of the Arbican population
moved from urban areas to suburban areas. This percentage
steadily declined, until, in 1990, it reached 3%.

If the statements above are all true, all of the following
statements concerning Arbicans between 1980 and 1990 could also
be true EXCEPT:

A. The number of Arbicans moving from
suburban areas to urban areas also decreased

B. The Arbican population increased, and so did the number
of Arbicans moving from urban to suburban areas

C. the arbican population decreased and so did the number of Arbicans
moving from urban to suburban areas.

d. The arbican population decreased, and the number of Arbicans moving
from urban to suburban areas remained the same.

E. The Arbican population increased, and the number of Arbicans moving from
urban to suburban areas remained the same.

Please explain why A is wrong.

Will post OA Later.

First, the question talks about people moving from Urban to Suburban.

Option A talks about number fo people moving from Suburban to Urban.

Lets look at D.

If the total Population decreased and the number of people remained the same the % should have increased. So D can not be True.

i don't understand how A can be true. There's nothing in the passage that says the population is moving from suburban areas to urban areas. This is a faulty assumption. Anyone else agrees?

D is the answer because it could not be true.
The passage does not give any information about the number of Arbicans that move from suburban areas to urban areas, so we can not confirm wether alternative A is true or not. Again, based on the passage, you can not say that A is 100% wrong.

U----> S (movement of Arbican population)
1980: 13%
1990: 3%

number of people moving / total number of people

this percentage has to decrease. in option D, if the number of people (numerator) is constant and the total no. of people is decreasing (denominator), then the percentage will increase- this is contrary to the information in the stimulus. Hence, this is incorrect.

Ans: D

Answer should be D.

If the population of Arbicans decreased but the number of Arbicans moving to the suburban areas remained the same, the percentage should have increased. D is the only one that could not be true.

A is out of scope and irrelevant. The number of Arbicans moving from the suburban areas to the urban areas should not affect the percentage of Arbicans moving from urban to suburban areas (unless we are specifically told it does)


OA please

+1 for D.

deleted.

The answer is definitely D.
The key to this question is the modal verb "COULD".

In 1980, 13 percent of the Arbican population moved from urban areas to suburban areas. This percentage steadily declined, until, in 1990, it reached 3%.

If the statements above are all true, all of the following
statements concerning Arbicans between 1980 and 1990 could also
be true EXCEPT:

A. The number of Arbicans moving from suburban areas to urban areas also decreased

>> It is definitely possible. For example, in 1980, we have 100 suburban residents, from which 13 moved to suburbs. It is possible that 2 people either return or 2 former suburb's residents moved to urban areas. The migration flow is definitely COULD be in two directions.

B. The Arbican population increased, and so did the number of Arbicans moving from urban to suburban areas

>> Why not? Imagine, we have 100 residents in 1980 => 13 immigrant. Then, the number of residents grew dramatically but the number of immigrant did only slightly.

Thus, we COULD have 1980,100,13 => 1990, 10000, 300.

C. the arbican population decreased and so did the number of Arbicans moving from urban to suburban areas.

>> Also possible. We COULD have 1980, 1000, 130 => 1990, 100, 3

d. The arbican population decreased, and the number of Arbicans moving
from urban to suburban areas remained the same.

>> NOT POSSIBLE. If we have 1980, 1000, 13 => 1990, 100, 3% CAN'T BE EQUAL TO 13!

E. The Arbican population increased, and the number of Arbicans moving from
urban to suburban areas remained the same.

>> why not? increase in population COULD decrease the ratio number of immigrants to the whole population.