<p>GF is studying for the GRE and came across this in the book:</p>
<p>On turning 65 years old, everyone living in the town of Malton becomes eligible to receive a card that guarantees discounts on most goods and services sold in the town. Census records for 1990 show that 2, 450 inhabitants of Malton turned 64 in that year. Yet . in 1991 over 3,000 people applied for and properly received discount cards. So clearly some of Malton’s population growth between 1990 and 1992 must be attributable to migration into the city by people in their mid 60s.</p>
<p>Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?</p>
<p>(A) The town of Malton has no complete census records for 1991.
(B) The overall size of the population of Malton grew by over 500 during 1990.
(C) Fewer people applied for and received discount cards in 1991 than did so in 1992.
(D) Among the people 65 years old or older who moved into Malton in 1991. there was no one who did not apply for a discount card .
(E) In general. people who applied for and received discount cards in 1991 first became eligible to do so in that year</p>
<p>The answer in the key is D. She and I think it’s quite clearly E. Does it seem right that it’s just a typo?</p>
<p>Hmm…D is tricky, because the stated argument that the increase is attributable to migrants relies on the fact that at least some of those migrants applied and received cards. The thing that makes it tricky is I’m not sure if the arguments requires ALL 65+ migrants to get a card, just some. For example if 1000 65+ migrants come in to the city, and 550 of them apply and get cards, as well as all of 2450 locals turning 65 apply and get the cards; this would account for the 3000 total, and only SOME of the migrants applied.</p>
<p>Well, the argument being made is that 65+ immigration is a reason for some of the population increase in Malton, right? And the justification is that there were more people who applied for 65+ benefits than people who were in the town the year before and supposed to turn 65 that year. To dismantle the argument that 65+ immigrants were the reason for the increase in benefits applications, you would have to find another source for the increase. </p>
<p>If Assumption D is the only one that’s false, then that just means that 65+ immigration was larger than than the 550 or so that applied for benefits. However, if assumption E is false, then the increase in application might just mean that people who were 66 or 67 finally got around to applying for benefits.</p>
<p>I don’t see the questions themselves in your post.</p>
<p>Hmm, tricky question. </p>
<p>That being said, unless this question actually comes from material produced by ETS, I wouldn’t worry about it. Obsessing over one particular question isn’t very productive and isn’t likely to help you on the actual test. At least not for the verbal portion. Now, if it were a quant question I would say differently because it is possible to encounter a question that requires the same approach but with different numbers. Move on, keep preppin’.</p>
<a href=“