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

Redeem

Poverty

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:48 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:740

Poverty

by 2010gmat » Sat Oct 24, 2009 3:50 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.

OA to follow.
I Think C and E are very close. Can anyone explain why C cant be the answer??
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 2326
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 3:54 am
Thanked: 173 times
Followed by:2 members
GMAT Score:710

by gmatmachoman » Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:12 am
Per Capita Income : Total Income/Total Population.

Let P1 = Per capita of Kuptala
P2= Per capita of Bahlon.

Argument says P1 is far lower than P2.

according to E ,now lets assume that there are 5 people living in Kaputula & 5 people in barholon.

Lets assume that people getting a annual salary below 200 Units are in poverty.

Salary of Kaputula Population : 1000,1000,1000,1000,995...
So P1=4995/5=1000(roughly).

Incase of Barholon..lets take 100000,10,150, 100,60.
Upon Calculation the P2(per capita income of Barholon ) will be higher than P1.

Here in Barholon, almost 4/5 income are far below the percapita.

So it concludes that even if percapita income is high,it not necessarily means that everyone in the sampling is above poverty.

It could be that the percapita income could have been skewed towards high earning population.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:48 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:740

by 2010gmat » Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:34 am
i agree that E helps in resolving the apparent paradox in the question but so does C

lets say population of K = 100 million and in K only 1 million people live under poverty

--> only 1% population in K is under poverty

population of B = 2 million
again lets say 1 million people live under poverty --> 50% population under poverty...

this can also resolve the paradox...

am i making any mistake while interpreting C??
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:48 pm
Hi!

This is not a "resolve the paradox" question. It is a flaw question. The answer must be E.

C is wrong: the argument is not flawed because the arguer overlooked the possibility of an equality between the two nations. His argument would still be wrong even if had entertained this possibility. Instead, the argument is flawed for the reason that choice E speaks of.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 371
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:48 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:740

by 2010gmat » Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:04 pm
agreed its not a flaw in the reasoning ques but even then C can be used to criticize the argument...

the nos that i used in my previous post can be used to show that demographers claims hold valid.

I myself picked E as the answer but wasn't 100% sure when crossing out C.
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sat Oct 24, 2009 8:56 pm
Hi 2010gmat,

Again, the numbers living in poverty may well be equal. However, that he apparently failed to consider this possibility is not the reason why his argument is flawed.

He is arguing that one of the two claims must be wrong or that they can't both be right at the same time. His argument is flawed because he does not consider the possbility that earnings can be far more widely distributed (and/or way more skewed to the left of mean) in Bahlton than in Kuptala. This is what choice E discusses, except it phrases this idea obversely: that he overlooked the possbility of incomes being more congregated around the mean in Kuptala than in Bahlton.

If he had considered this possbility, he would have realized that the two claims can indeed mutually coexist.

I hope that was clear.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:11 pm
Also, the argument involved fraction(s) of total national population(s) living in poverty, so the numbers of people living in poverty in the two nations is outside the scope.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1