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

Redeem

Service Occupations

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:05 pm

Service Occupations

by rohit9359 » Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:57 pm
Q. Recent estimates predict that between 1982 and 1995 the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations. This category, however, will not increase its share of total employment, whereas the category of high-paying service occupations will increase its share.
If the estimates above are accurate, which of the following conclusions can be drawn?
(A) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations.
(B) In 1995 more people will be working in high-paying service occupations than will be working in low-paying service occupations.
(C) Nonservice occupations will account for the same share of total employment in 1995 as in 1982.
(D) Many of the people who were working in low-paying service occupations in 1982 will be working in high-paying service occupations by 1995.
(E) The rate of growth for low-paying service occupations will be greater than the overall rate of employment growth between 1982 and 1995.

I chose [spoiler](B)[/spoiler]. The OA is [spoiler](A)[/spoiler]. Any explanation?

Thanks,
Rohit.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 7:40 am
Location: INDIA
Thanked: 4 times

by senthil » Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:18 pm
Can someone explain
Thanks
Senthil

It seems impossible until its done.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:10 am
Thanked: 3 times

Re: Service Occupations

by quocbao » Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:54 pm
I think we choose A between A & B, because we don't know the difference between the share of employment between low-paying & high-paying jobs. We only know that both will increase, but low-payng increase in number while high-paying increase in share.

Well, not actually understand :-P

S/O please comes with a correct explanation please
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:12 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by matterover » Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:27 pm
Good one..

I wish i could solve it in simple terms..but my humble attempt..



Two categories.
LP - Low Paying
HP - High paying.

when we have numbers and share ..please treat these questions carefully.
a) the greatest increase in the number of people employed will be in the category of low-paying service occupations -- this is a pure number of ppl
b) LP will not increase its share of total employment,-- this is the % . this means take into total employees and the % of LP within that.

I Want to take 3 cases.
Case A :
LP in 1985 is lower than HP in 1985
Case B :
LP in 1985 is equal to HP in 1985
Case C:
LP in 1985 is higher than HP in 1985..

Now key in your own number..looks simple.

Case A:
Number(Percent) Total.
1985 -- LP - 40 (40%) , HP - 60(60%) -- 100

number of ppl increase in LP, while the % of HP is more.
I pick the HP % as 61.
work backwards...say a total of 200 ppl are in service occupations by 1995.

1995 -- LP - XX(39%) -- HP -- 122 (61%) --- 200.
As u notice from this equation,
Number of LP in 1995 is (200 - 122 = 68 ),
So new people of LP from 1982 - 1995 == ( 68 - 40 = 38 ) whereas the number in HP -- (122 - 60 = 62) AND THIS IS FALSE..
because the # LP joined is more as clearly stated in the above argument.

Equal is almost ruled out .

Check for Case C.
LP Higher in 1982 .
Case C:
Number(Percent) Total.
1985 -- LP - 60 (60%) , HP - 40(40%) -- 100

number of ppl increase in LP, while the % of HP is more.
NOW the KEY HERE IS
Question mentions that the LP % will not increase its share and HP % will increase its share.
LP % can DECREASE ..Once again for a total of 200 in 1995.
1995 -- LP - 118( 59%) -- HP - 82 ( 41%) - 200.

So new people of LP from 1982 - 1995 = ( 118 - 60 = 58 ) whereas the number in HP -- (82 - 40 = 42)

HENCE
(A) In 1982 more people were working in low-paying service occupations than were working in high-paying service occupations.

My $0.01
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:13 pm
Location: SF, CA
Thanked: 12 times

by lilu » Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:40 am
I took simpler terms for this question.
I just want to give the situation that will satisfy A. If this situation were reversed, B would be correct. And there is not mathematical way to have shares and numbers the same from the beginning and end up with the result given in the argument.

Out of 100 people: 80 are employed in low-paying jobs (LP) and 20 are employed in high-paying job (HP). (80% vs 20% shares)
The market increases to 200 over time and the number in LP increases to 150 and the number in HP increases to 50.
So, the increase in LP is 70, in HP is 30,but LP now has a lower share - 75% vs 25%
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:28 am

by mason77 » Sat May 14, 2016 1:35 am
. I also think that the right answer is B.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1