Age Structure

In a population pyramid, the base represents children, the middle represents mainly working-age people, and the top represents older people. A broad base therefore indicates a large child population, while a broad middle indicates many people in working ages. A very narrow top indicates that the elderly form a relatively small share. Hence option A is the appropriate conclusion.

This pattern suggests substantial current or past fertility and a sizeable labour-force age group, but comparatively low survival into older ages or a younger overall population. It does not mean that every age group is equal, because the top is clearly much narrower. It also does not describe very low fertility with advanced ageing; those conditions usually produce a narrow base and a relatively wider upper section. The pyramid must be read from bottom to top.

Age structure shows how many people belong to different age groups, and these groups do not remain fixed. Children gradually become working-age adults, while working adults eventually enter older ages. By examining the present size of each group, planners can estimate future demand for schools, jobs, housing, health care, transport, and pensions. Births, deaths, and migration may change the exact outcome, so age structure does not provide a perfect prediction. It nevertheless gives an important starting point for understanding population needs over time.

Option A is correct because present age groups move through the life course and shape the size of future groups. Option B is false because age groups change as people grow older and as births and deaths occur. Option C is wrong because births and deaths directly affect age composition. Option D is too limited: total population matters, but its age distribution is also crucial for planning specific services.

The figures divide the population into three age groups: children are 30 percent, the working-age group is 60 percent, and older people are 10 percent. Since 60 percent is the largest share, the working-age group is the largest. Children aged 0–14 and older people aged 60 and above are treated in this question as dependent groups. Their combined share is \(30+10=40\) percent. Thus, 40 percent are in dependent age groups and 60 percent are in the working-age group.

Option A is therefore the most appropriate interpretation. The elderly group is only 10 percent, so it is not the largest. Children form 30 percent, which is smaller than the 60 percent working-age group. Also, dependents clearly exist, so the statement that there are none is false. The structure suggests a substantial working-age population, although the exact economic dependency burden would require additional information about employment and participation.

The three broad age groups together account for the entire population, or 100 percent. Children make up 36 percent and elderly people make up 8 percent. Their combined share is therefore \(36+8=44\) percent. The remaining share belongs to the working-age group, so it is \(100-44=56\) percent. Equivalently, the calculation can be written as \(100-(36+8)=56\) percent.

Hence, option B is correct. The question asks for the proportion left after removing both dependent groups, not for the sum of children and elderly people. Option A is the dependent share, 44 percent, while option C subtracts only the child population and ignores the elderly group. Option D has no basis in the given figures. This calculation assumes that the stated child, elderly, and working-age categories are mutually exclusive and together cover the full population.

Children aged 0 to 14 make up 40 percent of the population, which is a very large young share. People over 60 make up only 5 percent, so the elderly share is comparatively small. This structure creates especially strong demand for schools, teachers, nutrition, vaccination, and child health services. Therefore, option B is correct.

A large child population means many families and public authorities must provide education and health support at the same time. It may also create future demand for skills and employment when these children grow up. The figures do not point mainly to elderly pensions or long-term elderly care, because the older group is small. They also do not justify saying that only elderly dependency exists. The main immediate pressure is child dependency and the services needed by children.

When 68 percent of a country’s population is aged 15 to 59, the country has a large proportion of people in the potential working-age group. If unemployment is low, many of these people can actually participate in employment and production. Their work can raise output and household income, while their earnings and savings may support investment, education, health, and infrastructure. This combination can create a demographic dividend, provided that skills, jobs, institutions, and health conditions are adequate.

Therefore, option A is correct. A demographic dividend is an economic opportunity created by a relatively large working-age population compared with dependants. The age share alone does not guarantee prosperity; low unemployment in the question makes the opportunity more likely. Options B and C describe dependency pressures that are not indicated here, while option D is contrary to the stated low unemployment and large working-age share.

In an age-structure calculation, dependent population is commonly treated as the sum of children and older people, while the working-age group is treated as the main economically active group. Here, children make up 35 percent and elderly people make up 10 percent of the total population. Adding these two dependent groups gives \(35+10=45\) percent.

The working-age share of 55 percent is not added to the dependent share, because the question asks only for the child and elderly groups. The three percentages together also check the calculation: \(55+35+10=100\) percent. Therefore, 45 percent of the population is dependent under this simplified age-based classification. Option B is correct. In a detailed demographic study, exact age limits may vary, but that does not affect this calculation.

Child dependency compares the number of children with the population in the working ages. If children make up 25 percent and later make up 18 percent, their share has fallen by 7 percentage points. If the working-age group also increases, there are fewer children relative to the people who may support them. Thus the child dependency ratio is likely to decline, although the exact ratio would require the relevant age-group counts rather than percentages alone.

Option A is correct. The information does not prove that elderly dependency will double; older people may increase, decrease, or remain similar. It also says that the working-age group increases, so option C contradicts the condition. School demand may fall or change, but it cannot become immediately zero because children remain in the population. Therefore, the most defensible effect is a possible decline in child dependency.

Elderly dependency compares the number of older people with the working-age population that may support them economically or through care. If the elderly share rises from 8 percent to 16 percent while the working-age population remains stable, the number of older people relative to workers has increased substantially. This makes the elderly dependency burden more prominent and may increase demand for pensions, health care, and care services.

The information does not prove that child dependency will fall, because the number of children has not been given. It also does not imply that primary-school demand will double or that the working-age population will grow. Thus option A is the clearest conclusion. The exact dependency ratio would require precise age-group numbers, but the direction of change in elderly dependency is sufficiently clear from the stated conditions.

The base of a population pyramid shows the size of the youngest age groups. When the base was broad in the past but is now becoming steadily narrower, recent birth cohorts are smaller than earlier ones. The most direct demographic explanation is that fewer babies are being born, meaning fertility or the birth rate is declining.

Thus, option A is correct. A rapidly rising birth rate would normally widen the base, not narrow it. Rising elderly mortality affects older sections of the pyramid and cannot directly explain a smaller group of young children. Likewise, the working-age population does not disappear immediately simply because the base narrows; those children will affect future age structure over many years.

The middle part of a population pyramid generally represents people in working ages, while the base represents the youngest children. A broad middle therefore suggests that the working-age population is large. A relatively narrow base means that recent child cohorts are smaller, usually because the birth rate or fertility has declined. Together, these features describe a population with many potential workers and fewer newly born children. They do not prove that the elderly are the largest group, because the top of the pyramid has not been described.

The shape gives two separate clues that support option A. The wide middle identifies a large working-age group, and the narrow base indicates relatively low recent births. A country with this structure may have lower child dependency and a possible demographic dividend, provided that people can find productive work. It would be wrong to choose high fertility, because high fertility usually produces a broad base. Thus, the most appropriate conclusion is that the working-age population is large while new child cohorts are relatively small.

The age distribution shows that 20 percent of the population is aged 0–14, 70 percent is aged 15–59, and 10 percent is aged 60 or above. The 15–59 group is therefore the largest by far. It represents a large working-age share, which may create opportunities for economic production and a demographic dividend if people can obtain education, skills, health, and employment.

Option B is correct because the working-age group accounts for 70 percent. High child dependency would require a much larger proportion of children relative to working-age people, while elderly dominance would require a much larger older population. A very small working-age population is clearly inconsistent with 70 percent. The figures describe the age composition, not automatically the employment rate or guaranteed economic success; those depend on suitable policies and opportunities.

When people aged 60 and above make up 22 percent of the population, older persons form a large share of society. This age structure can increase the need for regular medical care, medicines, accessible facilities, long-term care, income support, and pensions. It may also require policies that help older people remain safe, healthy, and socially included.

Child vaccination and primary schools remain important in every society, but they do not address the main additional pressure indicated by this age distribution. Likewise, adolescent sports facilities serve a younger group and cannot replace old-age security or geriatric care. The most relevant policy response is therefore to expand pensions and elderly health services. Hence option B is correct, while “only” should be understood as identifying the priority rather than excluding all other policies.

Child dependency compares the number of children with the number of people in the working-age group. A common expression is \(\text{child dependency ratio}=\frac{\text{children}}{\text{working-age population}}\times100\). If the number of children stays unchanged but the working-age population rises by 20 percent, the denominator becomes larger while the numerator remains the same. The ratio therefore falls. For example, if there are 40 children and 100 working-age people, the ratio is 40 per 100; with 120 working-age people, it becomes about 33.3 per 100. Hence option B is correct.

The decrease is not necessarily a change in the number of children; it is a decrease in children relative to each working-age person. The ratio cannot increase under the stated conditions, unless some additional change affects the figures. It also need not remain unchanged, and it does not become elderly dependency, which measures older people relative to the working-age population. A larger working-age group can therefore reduce the burden of child dependency even when the child population itself is stable.

Elderly dependency is a ratio that compares the number of older people with the working-age population that may support economic activity and services. In simple terms, it can be represented as elderly population divided by working-age population, often multiplied by 100. If the number of elderly people stays constant while the working-age population becomes smaller, the denominator falls and the ratio rises.

For example, 20 elderly people compared with 100 working-age people gives 20 elderly dependants per 100 workers. If workers fall to 80 while the elderly group remains 20, the ratio becomes 25 per 100. Therefore, option B is correct: elderly dependency may increase. It will not necessarily become zero or decline, and there is a clear relationship between the two population groups.

In standard age-structure analysis, children and elderly people are counted as dependent groups because they are generally less likely to be in the working-age labour force. The question gives 18 percent for children and another 18 percent for elderly people. To find the combined dependent share, add the two percentages: \(18\%+18\%=36\%\). This is a percentage of the total population, not a ratio comparing dependents with workers.

Option C is therefore correct. The two dependent groups must both be included, so using only 18 percent would omit one group. The answer is not 28 percent because no subtraction or alternative weighting is required, and 64 percent would represent the remaining population only if calculated as \(100\%-36\%\), not the dependent share. The calculation assumes the stated groups do not overlap, as age groups normally do not.

The three broad age groups together make up the whole population, or 100 percent. Children account for 28 percent and elderly people account for 12 percent. Their combined share is therefore \(28+12=40\) percent. The remaining population belongs to the working-age group, so its share is \(100-40=60\) percent. This calculation assumes that the three categories are mutually exclusive and together cover the entire population, as is usual in an age-structure question.

Choice C, 60 percent, is correct. Choice A, 40 percent, is the combined share of children and elderly people, so it represents the dependent groups rather than the working-age group. Choice B does not follow from the given percentages, and choice D, 72 percent, is simply 100 minus the child share and incorrectly ignores the elderly group. Subtracting both non-working-age shares is the essential step.

A population pyramid reflects the relative size of age groups. If children make up 42 percent of the population, the younger age groups are very large. If elderly people make up only 4 percent, the older age groups are very small. A population with many children usually has a broad base, while a small elderly population produces a narrow top. Such a shape is commonly associated with a youthful population and often with relatively high fertility, although the pyramid alone does not prove every cause.

Choice B is correct because it describes a broad base and a narrow top. Choice A shows the opposite pattern: few young people and many older people. Choice C would suggest that age groups are more evenly distributed, which is not consistent with 42 percent children and only 4 percent elderly. Choice D is incomplete because a country still has children and elderly people; the age structure is not limited to the middle. The percentages clearly support an expansive pyramid.

Age structure describes how the population is divided among children, working-age people, and older people. In this case, children make up only 15 percent, while elderly people make up 24 percent. The older group is therefore considerably larger than the child group. Such a distribution is characteristic of an ageing population, often associated with low fertility and longer survival, although the question only requires the age-structure description.

Option B is correct because the elderly share is high relative to the child share. A very youthful population would have a large proportion of children, so A does not fit. The presence of children and elderly people means the population is not only working-age, making C incorrect. High child dependency is associated with a large child population, not a 15 percent child share alongside 24 percent elderly people, so D is also unsuitable.

A working-age share of 70 percent suggests a potentially favourable age structure: many people are in the ages when they can work and produce income. However, a 25 percent unemployment rate shows that a substantial part of this potential labour force is not finding jobs. The country therefore has the conditions for a demographic dividend, but the opportunity is not being fully converted into economic gains. Employment, skills, health, and productive investment are needed to realize it.

Option A is correct because it combines the opportunity indicated by the age structure with the constraint shown by unemployment. Option B is wrong because 70 percent is not a small working-age share. Option C does not follow, since a large working-age population can still support dependents. Option D reverses the relationship: high unemployment prevents, rather than strengthens, the demographic dividend. The exact unemployment measure may vary, but the conclusion remains appropriate.

Elderly dependency pressure compares the number of older people with the population that is normally considered of working age. Here, older people form 20 percent while the working-age group forms 50 percent. A simple illustrative comparison is elderly people divided by working-age people: 20 divided by 50 equals 0.4, or 40 older people per 100 working-age people, if these broad shares are used. This indicates a meaningful burden relative to the potential worker base.

Option A is correct because the elderly share is substantial compared with the working-age share. The exact official elderly-dependency ratio may use specific age limits, such as 65 and above compared with ages 15–64, so the question does not provide enough detail for a formal exact ratio. It is nevertheless clearly not zero and is related to the working-age population. Equality with child dependency cannot be inferred without child-age data.

A changing age structure changes the kinds of services a country needs. When the number and share of children decline, the pressure to build many new primary schools, classrooms, and child-focused facilities may reduce over time, although existing schools and quality services remain important. When the elderly population grows, demand usually increases for medical care, chronic-disease management, pensions, accessible transport, and long-term or home-based care.

Thus, option A describes the likely shift from expanding school capacity toward elderly health and care services. Option B reverses the demographic change. The demand for all services does not end, because every age group still has needs. Sports facilities may remain useful, but they represent only one part of service demand and do not capture the central age-structure change. Therefore, A is the best answer.

The age groups together represent the entire population, so their percentages must add to 100. The first group, ages 0 to 14, accounts for 32 percent. The second group, ages 15 to 59, accounts for 58 percent. These two groups together make up the non-elderly share: \(32+58=90\) percent. The remaining percentage must belong to people aged 60 and above.

Subtracting the known share from the whole population gives \(100-90=10\) percent. Therefore, the share aged 60 and above is 10 percent, so option B is correct. The calculation assumes the three stated groups are complete and non-overlapping, which they are because the age boundaries cover children, working-age people, and the elderly without a gap. An answer such as 8 percent would not complete the total to 100 percent.

A very large young population can become an advantage if people receive good education and useful skills. If the education system is weak, many young people may reach working age without the knowledge or training required by employers. The economy may then face a large supply of low-skilled workers, limited productivity, underemployment, and unemployment. The challenge can be especially serious when job creation does not keep pace with the growing number of entrants.

Option A is correct because it connects weak education with a low-skilled labor force and possible unemployment. Elderly dependency does not immediately become zero merely because the population is young; other age groups still require support. Children do not suddenly disappear, and pension pressure would not be the only possible problem. The outcome is not inevitable, but it is a clear and important risk when human-capital development is inadequate.

When the elderly population grows and people live longer, health systems must prepare for conditions that require continuing care rather than only short treatment. Older adults are more likely to need support for chronic diseases, rehabilitation, medicines, mobility, mental well-being, and assistance with daily activities. Longer life means these needs may continue for more years.

Therefore chronic-disease management and elderly care become especially important, making option A correct. Infant vaccination, school health checks, and adolescent sports medicine remain valuable public-health services, but they address narrower age groups and cannot meet the central need described. The question does not say that services for children should stop; it asks which need becomes more important as ageing and life expectancy increase.