Age Structure

Elderly dependency is generally calculated as the elderly population divided by the working-age population, multiplied by 100. An increase in the elderly numerator tends to raise the ratio, but rapid in-migration of working-age adults enlarges the denominator. If the denominator grows sufficiently quickly, elderly persons per 100 working-age people may increase slowly or remain relatively stable. Migration does not remove population ageing, so option C is incorrect. Option A is too absolute, and D confuses elderly dependency with child dependency. Thus, option B is correct.

The governing concept is the interaction of age cohorts. When large groups of young people enter the working-age range, the proportion of working-age people can rise. At the same time, declining fertility reduces the share of very young children, which raises the population’s average age because fewer people are concentrated at the youngest ages. These two processes can occur together during demographic transition. Rising fertility and an expanding child population would generally push average age downward, not upward. The disappearance of older people or equal ages is unrealistic. Hence, option A explains both observations.

An age-based elderly dependency ratio normally classifies people above a selected age threshold as dependents, but this is a demographic approximation rather than a complete measure of economic dependence. If healthy life expectancy is increasing, some older adults may remain fit, independent, employed, or otherwise economically active. Counting every person aged 60 and above as fully dependent can therefore overstate the actual economic burden. The ratio remains useful for planning pensions, health care, and support services, but it should be interpreted alongside health, employment, income, and participation data. Hence, option A is correct.

The governing concept is the child dependency ratio, which compares children with the working-age population rather than expressing children as a percentage of the total population. The formula is child dependency ratio = (children ÷ working-age population) × 100. Let the working-age share be W. Using the given values, (30 ÷ W) × 100 = 50. Therefore, 30 ÷ W = 0.50, so W = 30 ÷ 0.50 = 60 percent. Option C is correct. Option A and option B would produce ratios of 75 and 60 respectively, while option D would produce only about 40. The question excludes older people from this calculation.

The governing concept is the total dependency ratio, calculated as total dependent population divided by working-age population, multiplied by 100. Here, dependents constitute 50 percent of the total population and the working-age group also constitutes 50 percent. Thus, total dependency ratio = (50 ÷ 50) × 100 = 100. This means that there are 100 dependents for every 100 working-age persons. Option C is correct. The value 50 in option A is merely the dependent share of the total population, not the ratio between dependents and workers. Options B and D do not follow from the stated equal shares.

The governing concept is cohort ageing within an age structure. People who are 50 to 59 now will generally move into the 60-plus age category during the next decade. If this cohort is unusually large, the proportion of elderly people can increase noticeably as that group crosses the older-age threshold. The elderly dependency ratio may also rise if the working-age population does not grow equally fast or if younger cohorts are smaller. Option B is therefore correct. A large middle cohort does not automatically increase births, so option C is unsupported. Options A and D make changes that do not follow from the stated age distribution.

The relevant concept is cohort movement and the time lag between age structure and service demand. A very large 5-to-14 cohort is already in, or is approaching, school ages, so schools may face high enrolment and capacity requirements at first. The much smaller 0-to-4 cohort will enter school ages several years later, bringing fewer new pupils if migration and mortality do not substantially alter the pattern. Consequently, demand may stay high initially and then decline. Option B is correct. It is too extreme to say demand becomes immediately zero, continuously doubles, or transforms into elderly health demand.

The governing concept is the fiscal effect of a dual dependency burden. A large elderly population commonly requires public support for pensions, medical care, and sometimes long-term care. At the same time, a growing child population increases the need for schools, teachers, nutrition programmes, immunisation, and child-health services. Public authorities may therefore have to fund age-related services at both ends of the population pyramid, while the working-age tax base may not expand at the same speed. Option C correctly identifies rising expenditure on education and elderly health and pensions. Options A and B consider only one side, and option D reverses the likely budgetary pressure.

The governing concept is a conditional percentage: the 60 percent participation rate applies to the working-age group, not to the entire population. To find the share of the total population that is both working age and participating, multiply the two proportions: 70 percent × 60 percent = 0.70 × 0.60 = 0.42, or 42 percent. Option B is correct. The value 70 percent describes the size of the working-age group, while 60 percent describes participation within that group; neither figure alone answers the question. Option A is not obtained from the given rates, and option C incorrectly treats the conditional rate as a total-population share.

The governing concept is the distinction between population size, household size, and the number of households. A declining child share may reduce the average number of children per family, but it does not necessarily reduce the number of separate households. Smaller families, young adults living independently, delayed marriage, divorce, and one-person households can cause a stable or slowly growing population to occupy more housing units. Consequently, housing demand may remain high or even increase despite fewer children. Option A is correct. Options B and C assume an automatic relationship that does not exist, while option D ignores the way age structure influences household formation.

The three broad age groups must together make 100 percent of the population: children, working-age people, and elderly people. Initially, the child share is found by subtracting the other two groups: 100 minus 68 minus 12 equals 20 percent. After twenty years, the child share is 100 minus 58 minus 24, which equals 18 percent. Thus, the child share falls from 20 percent to 18 percent, so choice A is correct.

The change is a fall of 2 percentage points, not a fall of 2 percent relative to the original value. The working-age share decreases by 10 percentage points, while the elderly share rises by 12 percentage points; the remaining balance is reflected in the child share declining by 2 points. Choice B reverses the direction of change, choice C uses the wrong age figures, and choice D ignores that the three groups must sum to 100. This conclusion concerns population shares, not necessarily the absolute number of children.

The governing concept is the demographic dividend: a large youth cohort can become an economic advantage only when people receive education, skills, health support, and suitable employment. If technical and vocational education is limited, many young people may enter working ages without the capabilities demanded by modern jobs. The result can be lower productivity, weaker employability, underemployment, and a smaller effective demographic dividend. Option A is therefore correct. A youth-heavy structure does not automatically eliminate elderly dependency, narrow the pyramid base, or reduce fertility. Those outcomes depend on wider demographic, social, and economic changes rather than following mechanically from limited technical education.

The governing concept is the elderly dependency ratio, which compares the elderly population with the working-age population rather than using the elderly share alone. The formula is elderly dependency ratio = (elderly population ÷ working-age population) × 100. Substituting the given shares gives (30 ÷ 50) × 100 = 0.6 × 100 = 60. Thus, there are approximately 60 elderly people per 100 working-age persons, and option C is correct. Option A is only the elderly percentage of the total population, while option B is the working-age share. Option D does not result from the stated ratio and would overstate the dependency burden.

A fall in the child population tends to reduce the proportion of dependents, while rapid in-migration of young adults adds people directly to the working-age group. If the migration is large enough, the working-age share can therefore rise, even though the exact outcome also depends on the size and age composition of the existing population. This is why the wording “may increase” is appropriate. Option B is too absolute, because demographic results depend on scale and timing. Option C contradicts the decline in children, and option D is unsupported. Thus, option A is correct.

A population pyramid displays age composition by showing the relative size of different age groups. A large elderly population increases the width of the upper part, whereas the arrival of many young adults enlarges working-age groups, commonly visible in the middle. Consequently, both the upper and middle sections may become relatively broad at the same time. The base would be widened mainly by high fertility or many young children, not by adult migration. The middle cannot logically disappear when young adults are entering, and the entire pyramid would not necessarily narrow. Therefore, option A is correct.

A rigorous analysis of age structure should combine several complementary measures rather than rely on one statistic. Age shares describe the present distribution among children, working-age people, and older persons. Dependency ratios compare dependents with the working-age base, while a population pyramid reveals the shape and imbalance of cohorts. Cohort change helps trace how groups move through the age system, and migration explains sudden changes in particular age bands. Birth rate alone describes fertility, not the complete age structure, and total population gives no age distribution. Therefore, option C provides the most complete framework.

The total dependency ratio compares all dependent-age people with the working-age population. Children aged 0–14 and older people aged 65 and above are counted as dependents, while ages 15–64 form the working-age group. The ratio is expressed per 100 working-age persons, not simply as the percentage of dependents in the whole population.

The dependent share is 24% + 10% = 34%, and the working-age share is 66%. Therefore, the ratio is \(34/66\times100\approx51.5\), which rounds to about 52. Thus, option B is correct. A value of 34 would be only the dependent percentage, not the dependency ratio, because the required denominator is the working-age population.

When fertility falls quickly, fewer babies are born in each new generation. Therefore, children form a smaller share of the population, and the lower part, or base, of the age pyramid becomes narrower. This is a gradual change because existing children and adults do not disappear. At the same time, rising life expectancy means that more people survive into older ages. The population therefore tends to move towards an ageing structure.

Thus, the most likely long-term result is a larger elderly share together with a narrower pyramid base. Option B correctly combines both effects. Option A reverses the expected direction, while option C is not required because age groups do not become equal. Option D is extreme and incorrect: the working-age group may change in proportion, but it does not immediately disappear.

Old-age dependency pressure means the burden created by elderly people in relation to the working-age population. Since both countries have the same total population, comparing their elderly shares is already informative, but the working-age shares should also be checked.

Country A has 35% children and 8% elderly, so its working-age share is 57%. Country B has 20% children and 23% elderly, so its working-age share is also 57%. Thus, the elderly-to-working-age ratio is about 8/57 in A and 23/57 in B. Country B therefore has the greater old-age dependency pressure. Option B is correct.

People aged 25–40 usually belong to the economically active part of the working-age population. If many skilled workers in this age group leave a region, the origin region loses a substantial part of its labour force. The remaining population may contain relatively larger shares of children and older people, even if their actual numbers have not changed. This changes the age composition and can increase the burden placed on each remaining worker.

Therefore, option A is the best answer: the working-age share may fall and the dependency burden may rise. The word “may” is important because the exact result depends on the numbers and ages of migrants and those left behind. Children do not immediately disappear, elderly numbers need not decline, and the age structure cannot be assumed to remain unchanged. The other choices make absolute claims that do not follow.

A demographic dividend is a possible economic benefit from having a relatively large working-age population compared with dependents. However, the size of this group alone does not guarantee the benefit. Workers must be healthy, educated, skilled, and able to find productive employment. When unemployment is very high, many people counted as working-age are not earning or producing at their potential. The population structure may create an opportunity, but that opportunity is not automatically converted into higher income or output.

Consequently, option B is correct. A working-age share of 68 percent can provide favourable conditions, yet the dividend may remain limited if jobs, skills, investment, or suitable institutions are inadequate. Option A wrongly treats a large working-age share as proof of full success. Option C confuses age composition with dependency, and option D has no logical connection with unemployment. The key distinction is between demographic potential and its effective economic use.

The old-age dependency ratio measures the number of elderly people in relation to the working-age population. It does not include children. Here, people aged 65 and above make up 15% of the population, and those aged 15–64 make up 67%. The remaining child percentage is irrelevant to this particular ratio.

Using the standard formula, old-age dependency ratio = \(15/67\times100\). This gives approximately 22.39, which rounds to about 22 elderly persons per 100 working-age persons. Therefore, option B is correct. Option C, 15, is only the elderly share of the total population and is not the ratio because the ratio must use the working-age group as its denominator.

An age pyramid shows how people are distributed among children, working-age adults, and older people. A moderately broad base means births are not extremely high, while a very broad middle means that a large share of the population is in working ages. A gradually widening upper part suggests that people are living longer and the older population is increasing.

Therefore, the pattern fits an advanced stage of demographic transition, in which fertility has fallen and ageing is beginning. Option B is correct. Option A would require a very broad base and a strongly youthful structure. Options C and D are unreasonable because the pyramid clearly shows a substantial working-age group, and migration alone cannot be concluded from its shape.

Total dependency is made up of child dependency and old-age dependency. Therefore, if the child component keeps falling but the total remains stable, another dependent component must be increasing enough to offset that fall. In this age-structure context, the other component is elderly dependency.

For example, if child dependency falls by five percentage points and old-age dependency rises by five percentage points, their total can remain unchanged. The working-age population is not necessarily disappearing, and a declining child share cannot mean that children are rapidly increasing. Hence, rising old-age dependency best explains the pattern, so option A is correct.

A fall in birth rate usually reduces the proportion of children after some time. If large generations born earlier are still entering or occupying working ages, the working-age share can become unusually high. This creates a possible demographic dividend window, not an automatic economic benefit.

During this window, a country may have fewer dependents relative to workers. However, the opportunity produces benefits only when jobs, education, health, skills, and suitable policies allow people to work productively and save or invest. Low fertility does not guarantee population stability, and it cannot cause infant mortality to rise inevitably. Therefore, option A is correct.