Age Structure

Age structure is best understood by examining the sizes of all major age groups together. The child share shows the likely need for schooling and the potential for future entrants to the labor force. The working-age share indicates the main productive and supporting population. The elderly share helps assess ageing and later-life support needs. Dependency measures summarize the relationship between dependents and working-age people, while a population pyramid shows the shape and balance of these groups across ages and sexes.

Option A is correct because it combines complementary indicators instead of relying on one number. Total population size alone does not reveal whether a country is young or old. Birth rate gives only one demographic signal, and land area or rainfall does not directly describe age composition. Using the shares, dependency indicators, and pyramid together gives a more reliable medium-level interpretation of population structure and its possible social and economic implications.

The three age groups together account for the whole population: 34 percent are children, 58 percent are of working age, and 8 percent are elderly. The working-age group is the largest because 58 percent is greater than both 34 percent and 8 percent. However, the child share is also sizeable. It represents a substantial dependent population that needs education, health care, nutrition, and other support, even though it is smaller than the working-age group.

Option C is therefore the most appropriate interpretation. The figures do not show that the elderly are the largest group, so option A is wrong. The child group is not larger than the working-age group, so option B is wrong. Children and elderly people together form dependent groups, so option D is also wrong. The structure may offer a useful workforce base, but it also requires continued investment in children and preparation for future needs.

The population is divided into age groups whose percentages together make 100 percent. Children account for 27 percent and elderly people account for 13 percent. These two groups together represent the non-working or dependent age groups for this calculation. Their combined share is \(27+13=40\) percent.

The remaining part belongs to the working-age group. Subtracting the dependent share from the whole population gives \(100-40=60\) percent. Therefore, the working-age population is 60 percent, which is option B. This calculation assumes that the listed child and elderly groups are separate and that the three age categories cover the entire population without overlap or omission.

If 64 percent of the population is of working age and 36 percent belongs to dependent age groups, the working-age group is clearly larger. A simple age-based dependency ratio is approximately \(36/64\times100\), or about 56 dependents per 100 working-age people. This is not an extremely high burden in comparison with a situation where dependents equal or exceed the working-age population. Therefore, the age structure may offer a relatively favourable economic opportunity, especially if working-age people are healthy, skilled, and employed.

Option B is correct because it states both directly supported conclusions: the working-age group is larger, and the dependency structure may be relatively favourable. The data do not show that children are absent, nor do they identify whether dependents are mostly children or elderly people. Hence options C and D make claims that cannot be established. Option A is the opposite of the given percentages. The word “may” is appropriate because age structure alone does not guarantee prosperity.

Children aged 0 to 14 make up 38% of the population, which is a very large share. In contrast, only 6% are aged 60 or above, so the elderly share is comparatively small. This age structure creates immediate demand for schools, classrooms, teachers, textbooks, nutrition programmes, vaccination, and child health services. It also requires planning for the future expansion of skills and employment as this large young group grows older. Pension expansion or elderly long-term care may be important later, but they are not the highest immediate priority indicated by these figures.

The percentages provide the basis for the decision. More than one-third of the population is in the child group, while only a small fraction is elderly. Public resources should therefore first support education, nutrition, and health during childhood, when investment can improve survival, learning, and later productivity. Lowering the retirement age would not respond to the main demographic need. Hence option C is the most suitable policy priority, even though other services can still be maintained at appropriate levels.

Elderly dependency concerns the number of older people in relation to the working-age population. If the elderly share rises from 18 percent to 24 percent while the working-age group remains stable, older people make up a larger proportion of the population supported directly or indirectly by workers. This can increase the economic and care responsibilities associated with ageing.

Therefore elderly dependency may increase, making option A correct. The word “may” is important because an exact dependency ratio would require precise age-group counts and definitions. The data do not show that child dependency will rise, that the working-age population will double, or that school demand must increase. Those claims either concern different groups or are unsupported. The given change most directly points to greater elderly dependency.

Child dependency is commonly expressed as the number of children relative to the working-age population, often as a ratio or percentage. If the number of children stays constant but the working-age population becomes smaller, the denominator in this comparison falls. With the same number of children being supported by fewer working-age people, the burden per worker rises.

For example, if 40 children are supported by 100 working-age people, the ratio is 40 children per 100 workers. If the children remain 40 but workers fall to 80, the ratio becomes 50 per 100 workers. Thus child dependency may increase. It does not become zero, and it does not turn into elderly dependency; those are different measures. Therefore option B is correct.

The working-age population represents people who may participate in the labor market. If this group grows faster than the number of available jobs, more people will compete for each position. Some may remain without work, producing unemployment. Others may find only fewer hours, lower productivity, or jobs below their skills, producing underemployment. A large working-age population can support economic growth when suitable jobs and skills are available, but its size alone does not guarantee employment.

Option A is correct because it directly describes the likely labor-market pressure. Elderly dependency does not automatically disappear simply because the working-age group grows, and the child population cannot be assumed to become zero. Pension demand may change over time, but it would not immediately double merely because employment grows more slowly. The key comparison is between the speed of labor-force growth and the speed of job creation, so unemployment or underemployment is the most reasonable result.

The dependent population consists of people who are generally outside the working-age group, especially children and elderly people. When their percentages are provided, the total dependent share is found by adding those two percentages. The working-age percentage is not added to the dependent share because it is the separate, economically active age category.

Children form 20 percent and elderly people form 15 percent. Therefore, the dependent share is \(20+15=35\) percent. The remaining 65 percent is the working-age share, which also confirms that all three groups total \(100\) percent. Hence option C, 35 percent, is correct.

The base of a population pyramid represents the youngest age groups, while the upper part represents older groups. If the child population is declining, newer and younger cohorts are smaller, so the base becomes narrower. If the elderly population is increasing, older cohorts occupy a larger share and the upper part can become broader. The shape therefore changes toward an ageing or constrictive structure.

Hence, option B is correct: the base may narrow and the upper part may broaden. Option A reverses both expected changes. Option C is unrelated to the stated age trends, and option D is incorrect because changes in the shares of children and elderly people directly affect the pyramid. The exact shape also depends on sex composition, mortality, fertility, and migration, but the stated direction is clear.

The three age groups together make up the entire population, or 100 percent. If the working-age and elderly shares are known, their sum can be subtracted from 100 percent to find the child share. This is a part-whole calculation, so the percentages must refer to the same total population.

The working-age group is 72 percent and the elderly group is 7 percent. Together they account for \(72+7=79\) percent. The remaining share is \(100-79=21\) percent, which belongs to children. Therefore, option C, 21 percent, is correct. The stated age boundaries do not alter the arithmetic because the question already supplies the complete group shares.

Changes in the child share are not reflected in school demand immediately. Children born in earlier years move through the age structure as a cohort. If an earlier cohort was unusually large, many of those children may still be in primary or secondary school even after the proportion of children in the total population has begun to decline. Schools therefore continue to face high demand for some time.

Option A is correct because earlier large child cohorts can create a temporary delay between demographic change and education demand. Option B is wrong: low fertility generally reduces future school demand rather than immediately increasing it. Elderly people do not directly determine school enrolment, so C is unsuitable. Option D is false because age structure is closely related to the number of children needing schooling.

A pension system gives older people a regular income after they leave or reduce paid work. If the system is strong, elderly members may be able to meet more of their basic expenses through pensions rather than depending entirely on their children or other relatives. This can reduce the financial responsibility carried directly by families.

Therefore, the correct choice is A: pressure to financially support elderly members may be relatively lower. A strong pension does not remove every family responsibility. Older people may still need medical care, companionship, transportation, or help with daily activities. It also does not eliminate the need for schools, child nutrition, or youth employment. The question asks specifically about financial pressure, and that is the burden most directly reduced by reliable pensions.

When the child and working-age shares are known, the elderly share is the part left after those two groups are removed from the total population. Since population percentages for complete, non-overlapping groups add to 100 percent, subtraction gives the missing category directly.

Children account for 29 percent and the working-age group accounts for 61 percent. Their combined share is \(29+61=90\) percent. The remaining share is \(100-90=10\) percent, so the elderly group forms 10 percent of the population. Therefore, option B is correct. The calculation also checks because \(29+61+10=100\) percent.

The figures show that people aged 60 and above make up 22% of the population, while children aged 0–14 make up 18%. Thus, the elderly share is larger than the child share. This indicates that the country has a relatively advanced or ageing age structure rather than a strongly youthful one. The comparison is a useful simple indicator of the population’s direction.

Therefore, option A is the most appropriate conclusion. The data do not prove every detail about fertility, life expectancy, or future change, but they do show that older people form a larger proportion than children. Option B is inconsistent with the figures. Option C is too narrow because both child and elderly dependency may matter, and option D is false because 22% is not a small elderly share in this comparison.

A large working-age population creates a possible demographic dividend, but it does not guarantee economic gains. The dividend is strongest when people of working age can find productive employment, receive education and health support, and participate in economic activity. Women are an important part of this population, so very low female labor-force participation leaves a substantial potential workforce underused.

As a result, the country may receive only part of the possible benefit from its age structure, and the demographic dividend’s potential may be limited. Option A is correct. Low female participation does not automatically double the dividend, eliminate child dependency, or make the elderly population disappear. Other policies and conditions also matter, but the stated restriction clearly reduces the opportunity to convert a large working-age group into broader economic growth.

In this simplified calculation, the population is divided into children, working-age people, and older people. The child group accounts for 33 percent and the elderly group accounts for 12 percent. Together, these two groups account for the part treated as dependent: \(33\% + 12\% = 45\%\).

The complete population represents 100 percent. Therefore, the remaining share assigned to the working-age group is \(100\% - 45\% = 55\%\). Option C is correct. The calculation assumes that the stated child and elderly categories do not overlap and that all remaining ages are included in the working-age category. Option D, 67 percent, would incorrectly subtract only the elderly share and ignore the 33 percent child share.

Dependency pressure compares people commonly regarded as dependent, especially children and older persons, with the working-age population that may support them. Here, the working-age group is 55 percent and dependents together are 45 percent. The working-age population is therefore larger, but nearly half of the population is still in dependent groups. This means the burden cannot be called zero or negligible, even though it is not greater than the working-age share.

Option A is correct: dependency pressure is significant, while the working-age group remains larger. Dependents are not twice the working-age population, because 45 percent is less than 55 percent. The data also combine children and older people, so the situation cannot be described as only elderly dependency. The exact dependency ratio would be approximately \(45/55\times100\approx81.8\) dependents per 100 working-age persons, reinforcing that the pressure is substantial.

The 20–39 age group contains mainly young adults, students, recent migrants, and workers. If this part of a population pyramid is wider than expected, the country or region may have received many people in these ages from elsewhere. Employment, education, marriage, or other opportunities can attract young adults and enlarge this section.

Therefore, option A is the best explanation. A high infant mortality rate would tend to narrow the youngest groups, not specifically widen ages 20–39. Out-migration of elderly people would affect older ages and would not by itself create a broad young-adult section. A complete end of births would eventually narrow the youngest base, but it would not explain an unusually broad working-age group in the present.

People aged 20 to 35 are generally part of the working-age population, and many are also in important reproductive ages. If large numbers leave a region, the local population loses a substantial share of workers and young adults. The working-age share can therefore decline, even if the total population does not fall by the same proportion.

Children and elderly people may then form a larger relative share of the remaining population. However, the child population will not automatically double, and elderly numbers need not decline because of this migration. The exact effect depends on the size and selectivity of the migration, but option A states the likely possibility. Thus it is the appropriate answer.

Because the question asks about percentage composition only, the three age groups must add to 100 percent in each period. Initially, the working-age share is \(100-24-12=64\) percent. Later, the child share is 16 percent and the elderly share is 20 percent, so the working-age share is \(100-16-20=64\) percent. Therefore it remains unchanged at 64 percent. The fall in the child share is 8 percentage points, and the rise in the elderly share is also 8 percentage points, so the two changes offset one another.

Option A is correct. It is important to distinguish percentage points from percentages: the child share decreases by 8 percentage points, while the elderly share increases by 8 percentage points. Since their combined share stays the same at 36 percent, the remaining working-age share stays at 64 percent. This conclusion concerns composition, not the actual number of working-age people; the total population could still change substantially.

Dependency structure describes the relative numbers of people commonly considered dependent and those in the working-age group. If the working-age population remains stable, while child dependency falls and elderly dependency rises, the type of dependency is changing. Fewer children are present relative to the working-age population, while a larger share of dependants consists of older people. This indicates a shift from a younger dependent population toward an older dependent population, often associated with ageing and longer life expectancy. The total dependency ratio cannot be determined from these statements alone because the size of the two changes is not given.

Option A is correct. Option B is too absolute: total dependency will not necessarily become zero, since children and older people can continue to depend on support. Option C contradicts the stated fall in child dependency, and option D contradicts the rise in elderly dependency. The conclusion concerns the composition of dependants, not necessarily their total number or the exact future dependency ratio.

A growing population aged 60 and above is likely to have changing health needs. Older adults may require regular management of chronic illnesses, rehabilitation, medicines, mobility support, screening, and long-term or home-based care. If the health system remains designed mainly around child diseases, staff, facilities, training, and budgets may not be prepared for these services. The result is a mismatch between the needs of the population and the care that is available.

Choice A is correct because it identifies this mismatch as a service gap for elderly health needs. Child health programmes do not automatically double merely because the elderly population grows. The older population is not expected to decline, and age structure continues to change as births, deaths, and migration alter the population. The issue is therefore one of planning and resource allocation, not an automatic failure of all child services.

When a large youth population is about to enter working ages, the country must prepare for a major increase in the number of job seekers and potential workers. Education alone is not enough; young people also need relevant skills, vocational training, higher-education opportunities, and access to productive employment. Planning should also support entrepreneurship, labour-market matching, and fair participation so that the larger workforce can contribute to growth.

Option A is correct because expanding jobs, skills, and higher-education capacity addresses the main upcoming pressure. Options B and C focus only on older people and do not prepare young entrants for work. Option D is inappropriate because primary schools are still needed for younger cohorts and should not be closed merely because a large youth group is ageing into employment.

Working age is an age-based demographic classification. It identifies people who fall within a commonly defined age range, but it does not tell us whether they actually have a job, are seeking work, or are economically active. Students, unemployed people, homemakers, people with disabilities, and others outside the labour force may all be included in this group.

Thus, saying that 69 percent are of working age does not mean that all 69 percent are employed. Employment requires separate information about labour-force participation, jobs, and unemployment. The group remains economically important because it represents potential workers, but its size alone cannot prove actual employment. Dependants may still exist among children, older people, and economically inactive adults. Therefore, option A is correct.