Question about ownership gap

[voodoochild]

Team,
Recently, I read this article:http://www.usaonrace.com/latest-news/ne ... equity-gap (I read economics article to attack such #/% issues)

Once you are on that page, search for paragraph starting with "the business ownership gap" and "closing the gap"

It talks about business ownership gap, meaning 45% of the population constituted Martians but only 10% of minority owned businesses were owned by Martians.

Two questions:- why would someone compare these two different quantities (one is a %of population and the other is a percentage of minority-owned businesses) ? The total number could be vastly different. For instance, population = 100; 75% of that = 75. On the other hand, total minority-owned business could be =1000; 30% of that amount is > 75! I am not sure why the author do a comparison between two percentages. Surprisingly, then the author talks about "closing" the gap? I am really not sure about this.

I think any conclusion on LR problem could be easy to attack. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I have seen a few LR questions recently on this concept.

Please help

Thanks

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Voodoo,

There's really no way to know why the writer chose those percentages. People have all sorts of agendas when they write, or they may not even fully understand what each figure represents, so it's hard to say what was in their minds when they wrote.

I will note that your numerical example has a problem--if the population is 100, total minority owned business can't be 1000, as that would exceed the total population figure.

Finally, not all LR conclusions are easy to attack. An quick example to disprove that assertion is that a number of Must problems contain solid conclusions (when they contain a conclusion).

Thanks

[voodoochild]

Dave,
Thanks for your excellent reply. I have two quick questions.

There's really no way to know why the writer chose those percentages. People have all sorts of agendas when they write, or they may not even fully understand what each figure represents, so it's hard to say what was in their minds when they wrote.

I have seen such pattern even in the Economist and Mckinsey Quarterly journals in that the author talks about x% of Y and z% of A, and then talks about the gap. I am really not sure why would someone use such statistics. I have seen a repetitive pattern. Hence, I just wanted to make sure that I am not missing something very crucial -- a possibility that the LSAC could trip me up. From what I could think, I think that such premises (that is two different percentages) are combined to demonstrate equal distribution. For instance, 50% of drivers cars have at least one child aged less than 5 years; however, 90% of the drivers who are ticketed for unsafe driving were found with the kids (aged < 5 years) seated on the front seat of the car. -- The point could be demonstrate that 'more number of drivers who have kids aged < 5 years drive with their children seated on the front seat of the car.' (I am not sure -- this is my imagination - Please correct me if I am wrong.)

I will note that your numerical example has a problem--if the population is 100, total minority owned business can't be 1000, as that would exceed the total population figure.

I intentionally did that to prove my point. My point was to demonstrate that one person could own more than one business, but still the ownership gap could be not equal to 0.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks
Voodoo Child