Age Structure

The three stated age groups together make up the whole population. In the new situation, children account for 18% and elderly people account for 22%. Their combined share is therefore 40%. The working-age group must occupy the remaining part of the population, assuming the same mutually exclusive categories are used.

The new working-age share is \\(100-(18+22)=100-40=60\\%\\). Therefore, option A is correct. The original working-age share of 61% is not used to calculate the new value, because the question gives the new child and elderly shares directly. A useful check is that the new percentages must add to 100: 18 + 60 + 22 = 100.

Total dependents include both children and elderly people. The dependency ratio is not simply the dependent percentage; it measures dependents in relation to working-age people. For every 100 people in the whole population, 30 are children, 20 are elderly, and 50 are working age. Thus the dependent group and the working-age group have equal sizes.

The dependent share is \(30+20=50\) percent, while the working-age share is 50 percent. The ratio is therefore \(50/50\times100=100\). This means that for every 100 working-age persons, there are 100 dependents. Hence option C is correct. Option A counts only the dependent percentage and does not express it per 100 working-age persons.

The child dependency ratio and elderly dependency ratio are two parts of the total dependency ratio. Both are normally expressed as dependents per 100 working-age people. Since they use the same working-age denominator, their values can be added directly to obtain the total ratio. No subtraction or averaging is needed.

The child component is 45 and the elderly component is 25. Therefore, total dependency is \(45+25=70\) dependents per 100 working-age persons. Option C is correct. The value 45 describes only child dependency, while 25 would describe only elderly dependency; neither includes both groups. The result does not mean that 70 percent of the entire population is dependent, because a ratio and a population percentage are different measures.

The total dependency ratio combines two parts: child dependency and elderly dependency. It compares all dependents with the working-age population, usually per 100 working-age people. Thus, the total is obtained by adding the child and elderly ratios. To find the missing child part, subtract the known elderly part from the total.

Child dependency ratio = total dependency ratio − elderly dependency ratio = \(85-30=55\). Therefore, the correct choice is 55, option C. This means that for every 100 working-age people, there are about 55 child dependents after the ratios are expressed on the same base. The other values do not satisfy the required subtraction.

A large 50–59 age group is close to retirement or old age. During the next decade, many members of this cohort will enter the 60-plus group, increasing the number and likely the share of elderly dependents. A relatively small 20–29 group also means that fewer young adults may be available to enter jobs and replace retiring workers.

Together, these features can create pressure on pensions, health and care services, and the supply of new workers. Therefore, option B—greater old-age dependency and pressure to replace the labour force—is the most likely challenge. A school-demand explosion would require a large rise in births, which is not indicated. Fertility will not necessarily rise, and the working-age population cannot automatically double.

The total dependency ratio compares the dependent population with the working-age population, not with the whole population. Dependents generally include children and older people, while the working-age group is the base used for comparison. Therefore, the given 34 percent dependent population must be compared with 66 percent working-age population.

Use the formula \(\frac{\text{dependent population}}{\text{working-age population}}\times100\). Thus, \(\frac{34}{66}\times100\approx51.5\), which rounds to about 52. This means that there are approximately 52 dependents for every 100 working-age people. Option C is correct; 34 is only the dependent share, not the ratio.

The 72 percent figure describes the whole working-age group, not the share that actually enters the labour market. The participation rate must therefore be applied to that 72 percent. Since only half of the working-age population participates, the participating share is one-half of 72 percent. This is a multiplication of two proportions, not a choice between the two given percentages.

Convert the values to decimals: \(72\%=0.72\) and \(50\%=0.50\). Then \(0.72\times0.50=0.36\), or 36 percent of the total population. Thus option B is correct. The answer is not 50 percent, because that rate applies only within the working-age group, and it is not 72 percent, because not everyone of working age participates.

A dependency ratio compares a dependent age group with the working-age group, not with the entire population. Therefore, the child share and elderly share must each be divided by the 60 percent working-age share and then multiplied by 100. The word “respectively” means that the child ratio must be stated first and the elderly ratio second.

Child dependency = \(\frac{25}{60}\times100\approx41.7\), which rounds to 42. Elderly dependency = \(\frac{15}{60}\times100=25\). Hence the correct pair is 42 and 25, option A. The pair 25 and 15 merely repeats the population shares and ignores the working-age denominator, so it is not a dependency-ratio calculation.

Total dependency is obtained by adding child dependency and elderly dependency, because both groups depend mainly on the working-age population. Initially, child dependency is 50 and elderly dependency is 20, so the starting total is 70. Later, child dependency becomes 30 and elderly dependency becomes 35.

The new total is therefore \(30+35=65\). Comparing the two totals, dependency changes from 70 to 65, a fall of 5 percentage points. The decrease in child dependency is 20 points, while the increase in elderly dependency is only 15 points, so the overall result is a net decline of 5. Option A is correct.

The dependency ratio compares the dependent population with the working-age population, not with the whole population. A ratio of 56.25 means that for every 100 working-age people, there are 56.25 dependent people. Since the working-age group is 64 percent of the total population, the dependent share can be found by multiplying 64 by 0.5625.

Thus, dependent share = \(64\times0.5625=36\) percent. The result also passes a useful population check: \(64+36=100\) percent. Therefore, option C, 36 percent, is correct. Option D is not correct because 56.25 is a ratio relative to working-age people, not a direct percentage of the total population.

The elderly dependency ratio is calculated by comparing the elderly share with the working-age share. It is not the elderly percentage of the whole population, so the ratio cannot simply be read as 25 percent. Let the elderly share be \(E\). The statement means that 25 elderly people are present for every 100 working-age people.

Using the ratio, \(\frac{E}{60}\times100=25\). Rearranging gives \(E=60\times\frac{25}{100}=15\) percent. Therefore, option B is correct. A quick check confirms it: \(\frac{15}{60}\times100=25\). Option D would confuse the dependency ratio with the elderly share and would not use the given 60 percent working-age base correctly.

The child dependency ratio measures children in relation to the working-age population. A ratio of 40 means that for every 100 working-age people, there are 40 children. The working-age group is 65 percent of the total population, so the child share is obtained by multiplying 65 by 0.40.

Therefore, child share = \(65\times0.40=26\) percent of the total population. This gives option B. The value 40 should not be selected directly, because it is the dependency ratio, not the children’s percentage of the whole population. The remaining population may include elderly people, but that does not affect this calculation.

The total dependency ratio is found by adding the child dependency ratio and the elderly dependency ratio, because both groups depend on the working-age population. Here it is \(30+20=50\). This means dependents equal half of the working-age population, not half of the total population.

Let the dependent share be \(D\). With a working-age share of about 66.7 percent, \(\frac{D}{66.7}\times100=50\). Hence \(D=66.7\times0.50\approx33.35\) percent, which rounds to 33.3 percent. Option B is therefore correct. The remaining approximately 66.7 percent is the working-age group, so the two shares also total about 100 percent.

The population is divided into working-age people, children, and elderly people. The working-age share is 68 percent and the child share is 20 percent, so the elderly share is the remainder: \(100-68-20=12\) percent. Children and elderly people together are dependents, giving a total dependent share of \(20+12=32\) percent.

The total dependency ratio compares this 32 percent with the 68 percent working-age group: \(\frac{32}{68}\times100\approx47.1\), or about 47. Therefore, the correct combination is option A: 12 percent elderly and approximately 47 dependency ratio. A value of 32 is the dependent share, not the ratio, so option D confuses two different measures.

A falling child population and rising youth unemployment describe different aspects of population and the labour market. Fewer children may eventually mean fewer new workers, but it does not immediately create jobs for young adults who are already seeking work. Employment also depends on economic growth, the kinds of jobs available, education, skills, wages, and the match between workers and employers.

Therefore, the balanced conclusion is that a declining child population does not automatically solve the employment problem, which is option A. Options B and C make absolute or one-factor claims that are not justified. Option D is also wrong because age structure can influence labour supply and future employment, even though it is not the only influence. The two trends can occur together without contradiction.

The number of elderly people is an important indicator of possible long-term-care demand, but it does not determine actual care needs by itself. Health status, disability, healthy life expectancy, family support, housing, and access to services also matter. If older people remain independent for more years, a smaller share of them may need intensive or institutional care at any one time.

Thus the most appropriate conclusion is that care pressure may be lower than expected despite a large elderly population, so option A is correct. This does not mean that care demand disappears; ageing can still increase the total number needing support later. Option B wrongly treats the elderly percentage as identical to care need, while C ignores the effect of better health and D incorrectly claims that the elderly population will automatically shrink.

The dependency ratio is calculated as dependent population divided by working-age population, multiplied by 100. Here the working-age group is 62 percent and the ratio is 61.3. If the dependent share is \(D\), then \(\frac{D}{62}\times100=61.3\). Therefore, \(D=62\times0.613=38.006\), approximately 38 percent.

Option B is correct. The answer can also be checked by considering the population split: if 62 percent is working age, the remaining 38 percent must be outside that group and therefore dependent under the question’s classification. Options C and D confuse the ratio or working-age share with the dependent share. Rounding explains the approximate wording.

Both dependent groups have exactly the same population share: 18 percent. They are also compared with the same working-age share, 64 percent. When two fractions have equal numerators and the same denominator, their values are equal. The comparison therefore does not require calculating two different-sized ratios.

Child dependency is \(\frac{18}{64}\times100\), and elderly dependency is also \(\frac{18}{64}\times100\). Each is approximately 28.1, although the exact numerical value is not needed to answer the relationship question. Thus both ratios are equal, so option C is correct. A larger child or elderly ratio would require one of the two dependent shares to be larger, which is not the case here.

The total dependency ratio uses all dependents, so the child and elderly shares must first be added. The child dependency ratio uses only the child share. In both cases, the denominator is the working-age share of 60 percent. Keeping this common denominator is essential; using 40 or 32 directly would confuse population shares with ratios.

Total dependents = \(32+8=40\) percent, so total dependency = \(\frac{40}{60}\times100\approx66.7\), or 67. Child dependency = \(\frac{32}{60}\times100\approx53.3\), or 53. Therefore, option A is correct. The reversed pair in option C assigns each calculated ratio to the wrong group.

Age structure reflects the timing of births because people born in the same period move through age groups together as a cohort. A large group does not disappear when it leaves childhood; it appears later in the youth or adult categories. Thus different age groups can show the effects of births from different periods at the same time.

Here, the declining 0–14 group suggests that recent birth cohorts are smaller. The still-large 15–24 group indicates that cohorts born earlier were larger and have now moved into youth ages. This delayed appearance of earlier birth patterns is the time-lag effect. Therefore, option A is correct. Rising recent fertility would more likely enlarge the youngest group, not explain its decline.

The three age groups together make up the entire population, or 100 percent. The working-age share is 58 percent and the elderly share is 28 percent. The child share is therefore the part left after subtracting these two groups from 100 percent: \(100-58-28=14\) percent.

Total dependents include both children and elderly people. Adding their shares gives \(14+28=42\) percent. Thus, children form 14 percent of the population and all dependents together form 42 percent. Option A gives exactly this pair. Option B incorrectly treats the elderly share as the child share, while the other choices do not satisfy the population total.

Elderly dependency indicates how many older people there are compared with the working-age population, so it can signal future pressure on pension systems. However, the ratio does not tell us how many older people actually receive pensions or how much each person receives. Government expenditure depends on coverage, eligibility rules, contribution history, benefit levels, retirement age, and funding arrangements.

Consequently, limited pension coverage or reduced benefit amounts could keep pension spending stable even while elderly dependency rises. This makes option A the best explanation. A rising dependency ratio does not prove that the elderly population is declining, so B is unsupported. C is impossible as a meaningful demographic situation, and D is too extreme: elderly dependency is relevant to pensions even though it is not the only determinant.

A larger working-age share can create a demographic dividend, because more people may be available to work and support production. However, this opportunity does not automatically produce higher income. People must have suitable jobs, education, skills, health, investment, technology, and effective institutions for the opportunity to become economic growth.

Here, the working-age share is increasing but per-capita income is not rising. This shows that a favorable age structure alone is insufficient. Other economic and social conditions may be preventing the potential benefit from being realized. Therefore, the most appropriate conclusion is that favorable age structure does not guarantee economic growth by itself. Option A is correct.

The child dependency ratio compares the child share with the working-age share. The given ratio of 25 means that children equal 25 percent of the working-age population when expressed per 100 working-age people. Let the working-age share be \(W\). The information can therefore be written as \(\frac{20}{W}\times100=25\).

Solving gives \(20\times100=25W\), so \(W=2000/25=80\) percent. Therefore, option C is correct. The question explicitly limits the calculation to these two groups, so no separate elderly group needs to be considered. A 60 percent working-age share would produce a child dependency ratio of about 33.3, not 25.

The elderly dependency ratio is defined as elderly population divided by working-age population, multiplied by 100. The elderly share is 16 percent and the ratio is 20, so if the working-age share is \(W\), then \(\frac{16}{W}\times100=20\). Solving this equation gives \(1600=20W\), and therefore \(W=80\) percent.

Thus, option C is correct. A quick population check shows that 16 percent elderly and 80 percent working age leave 4 percent for other age groups, which is not contradictory because the question asks only for the working-age share implied by the stated ratio. The ratio must not be read as a direct 20 percent population share; it is measured relative to the working-age denominator.