Age Structure

Age percentages show the relative shares of children, working-age people, and older people, but percentages alone do not explain their social and economic consequences. The dependency ratio helps estimate the pressure that children and older people may place on the working-age group. A population pyramid shows the shape and possible future direction of the age structure. Employment information indicates whether working-age people are economically engaged, while service-demand data helps plan schools, health care, housing, transport, and pensions.

These measures together provide a more useful medium-level analysis than age percentages alone. Rainfall, temperature, area, language, and religion may matter for other studies, but they do not directly interpret age structure. Therefore option A is correct because it combines demographic structure with its economic and service implications.

The governing concept is age composition, which describes the distribution of a population among age groups. People aged 20–40 are generally included in the working-age population. When a region receives many migrants from this age range, the numerator representing working-age residents rises immediately, while the total population also rises. If the migrants form a substantial share of the inflow, the working-age proportion is likely to increase and the dependency ratio may temporarily decline. Option B is wrong because young-adult migration cannot immediately make older people the largest group. Option C is an extreme and unsupported claim, and option D ignores the direct demographic effect of selective migration. Later births, family reunification and return migration could modify the pattern.

The governing concept is the relationship between age structure and human-capital formation. A large child population can become a large working-age population in the future, but numbers alone do not guarantee productive employment or economic growth. Investment in schooling, nutrition, health care, vocational preparation and relevant skills improves the capabilities of children before they enter working ages. This can help convert a youthful age structure into a demographic dividend, provided suitable jobs are also available. Option B is unsuitable because more births increase the dependent population and may intensify pressure on schools and health services. Options C and D weaken human capital and reduce future productivity rather than strengthening it.

The governing concept is the old-age dependency burden within age structure. If the elderly population grows while the working-age population contracts, there are relatively fewer potential workers and taxpayers to support pensions, medical care and other social-security services. Consequently, expenditure per worker or the tax burden on each worker may rise, unless productivity, retirement policy or immigration offsets the change. Option B is not necessary: ageing societies often have fewer children, so primary-school demand may fall rather than double. Option C does not follow because youth unemployment depends on labour-market conditions, and option D has no direct demographic basis. Thus option A is the most likely pressure.

The governing concept is the distinction between relative composition and population scale. A percentage tells us what share of the total population belongs to an age group, whereas an absolute number tells us how many people are actually in that group. Both are needed for sound demographic interpretation and planning. For example, an elderly share of 10 percent could represent one million people in a population of ten million, but ten million people in a population of one hundred million. The percentage is identical, yet the demand for hospitals, pensions and care services is very different. Option A is therefore correct. Options B and C wrongly reject useful measures, while D confuses demographic measurement with mapping.

The governing concept is the interpretation of an age pyramid. Its base represents the youngest age cohorts, so the width of the base depends primarily on the number of recent births and the fertility level. A progressively narrower base means that successive younger cohorts are smaller, which directly indicates declining births or fertility. Option B is biologically impossible and reverses the meaning of the pyramid. Option C could influence the middle portion if working-age people migrate, but it would not be the direct explanation for a sustained narrowing at the base. Option D is also incorrect because zero mortality would affect survival and older cohorts, not create fewer births. Therefore option A is unambiguous.

The governing concept is age structure: when the proportion of elderly people rises, public policy must respond to their mobility, safety, health and independent-living needs. Age-friendly housing may include step-free entrances, lifts, non-slip floors, adequate lighting, accessible bathrooms, emergency support and proximity to health services and public transport. Therefore, option A is correct. Option B is aimed mainly at students, not older residents. Option C creates barriers for people with reduced mobility, while option D would increase isolation and make essential services harder to reach. Housing, transport and urban design must be planned together in an ageing society.

The governing concept is demographic transition. In an advanced stage, fertility becomes low, life expectancy is generally high, and successive birth cohorts may become smaller than older cohorts. Consequently, the share of children falls, the elderly share rises, and total population growth can slow to zero or become negative after some time. Option A correctly combines these indicators. Option B would normally produce a broad-based population pyramid, a large child population and rapid growth. High infant mortality alone cannot explain an increasing elderly share, and school enrolment is not a demographic stage. The pattern therefore indicates advanced transition with ageing.

The governing concept is the age pyramid, which displays the population by age groups and often by sex. People aged 18–35 are concentrated in young-adult and early working-age bands, so migration into the region will make the corresponding lower-middle portion wider. Option A is therefore correct. The elderly section will not immediately expand because the migrants are not primarily elderly. The newborn base may change later if migrants form families and have children, but that is an indirect and delayed effect. The whole pyramid will not widen equally because migration is selective by age and is driven here by universities and IT employment.

The governing concept is the time lag in demographic change. Newborns do not enter employment immediately; they remain dependent for many years and require nutrition, health care, education and family support. Raising fertility may therefore increase youth dependency in the short and medium term, while its possible effect on the size of the future labour force appears only after a long interval. Option A is correct. Option B is false because infants are not immediate taxpayers. Option C ignores the connection between fertility and future age structure, while option D wrongly treats migration as the only cause of ageing. Policies for ageing must also address pensions, health, productivity, employment and care.

The governing concept is the demographic dividend: a large working-age share creates an opportunity, but it does not automatically produce development. If workers are concentrated in insecure, informal or low-productivity jobs, income, savings, tax revenue, skills formation and total output may remain limited. Therefore, option A is correct: the favourable age structure has economic potential that is not being fully converted into a dividend. Option B is too strong because the dividend has not been fully realised. Option C confuses population composition with productivity, and option D is wrong because dependency indicators remain useful for planning. Education, health, formal employment and productive investment are needed to use the opportunity.

The governing concept is age structure, which divides a population into groups such as children, working-age adults and elderly people. Each group creates different demands and contributes differently to society and the economy. A large child population requires schools, immunisation and maternal-child services; a large working-age group requires skills and employment; and a growing elderly population requires health care, pensions and support services. Option A is correct because age data help governments forecast these present and future requirements. Option B concerns land area, not population composition. Options C and D are unrelated to the planning value of demographic information.

The governing concept is the mutually exclusive age distribution of a population: children, working-age people and elderly people together make 100 percent. In the new situation, children and elderly people account for 24 + 18 = 42 percent. The remaining working-age share must therefore be 100 − 42 = 58 percent. It rises from the original 57 percent to 58 percent, an increase of one percentage point, so option A is correct. The child share falls by seven points, while the elderly share rises by six points; the net reduction in dependent groups is one point. The other options do not satisfy the 100-percent total.

The governing concept is the age-based dependency ratio, calculated as: dependent population divided by working-age population, multiplied by 100. Children and elderly people are the dependents here, so their combined share is 25 + 13 = 38 percent. The ratio is therefore (38 ÷ 62) × 100 = approximately 61.3, or about 61 dependents per 100 working-age persons. Option B is correct. Option A is only the percentage share of dependents and does not use the working-age denominator. Options C and D do not follow from the stated figures and confuse a ratio with a population percentage.

The governing concept is the composition of dependency, not merely its total size. If child dependency falls while elderly dependency rises and the combined total remains nearly constant, one type of dependent is replacing another. The burden is shifting from younger dependents to older dependents, which is consistent with population ageing and lower fertility. Therefore, option B is correct. Option A is not required because the working-age population could remain stable while the dependent groups change internally. Option C contradicts the stated rise in elderly dependency, and option D ignores the clear change in the age composition of dependents.

For this calculation, children aged 0–14 and older people aged 60 or above are treated as dependent groups. Their combined share is \(22+18=40\) percent. The working-age share is the part remaining from the full population of 100 percent, so it is \(100-40=60\) percent.

Thus the country has 40 percent dependents and 60 percent in the working-age category under the age grouping used in the question. The order requested is working-age share first and total dependent share second, giving 60 percent and 40 percent. Option A matches this result. The calculation is a simple partition of the population; it does not require a separate assumption about employment, because working-age people may not all actually be employed.

The three age groups together make up the whole population, so their percentages must add to 100. The initial working-age share is found by subtracting the child and elderly shares from the total: \(100-36-8=56\) percent. After the changes, the new working-age share is \(100-24-14=62\) percent. Thus the working-age population share becomes larger even though the elderly share rises, because the decline in the child share is greater than the increase in the elderly share.

The change is \(62-56=6\) percentage points. It is important to say “percentage points,” not simply 6 percent, because the question compares two shares expressed in percentage terms. Therefore, option B is correct: the working-age share rises by 6 percentage points. The 12-point fall in children is partly offset by the 6-point rise in elderly people, leaving a net 6-point gain for the working-age group.

The governing mathematical principle is that all age-group percentages in a population composition must add to 100. If the working-age share decreases while the composition remains a complete distribution, the lost percentage must be transferred to one or both of the other categories: children or older persons. Therefore, at least one of those shares must increase. Option B cannot be correct because every category cannot decline while their percentages still total 100. Option C misunderstands percentages, which are relative shares rather than quantities whose total may fall below 100. Option D contradicts the stated decline. Hence option A is unambiguous.

The dependency ratio compares dependent people with the working-age population. Here, children and elderly people are dependents, so their combined share is 28 percent plus 20 percent, or 48 percent. The working-age share is 52 percent. The calculation is \\(\text{dependency ratio}=\frac{48}{52}\times100\\\), which is about 92.3 dependents per 100 working-age persons. Rounded to the nearest option, this is about 92, so choice C is correct.

The ratio is not found by simply adding 28 and 20 as if the answer were a percentage of workers; the denominator matters. We compare the 48 dependent people with every 52 working-age people. Choice A would confuse the dependent share with the ratio, while B is the working-age percentage itself. Choice D is too high for the stated figures. The result means that for every 100 people in the working-age group, there are approximately 92 children and elderly people combined.

A population pyramid represents the relative size of age groups from the youngest at the base to the oldest near the top. Here, children account for only 18 percent, so the base should be relatively narrow. Older persons account for 26 percent, a larger share than children, so the upper part should be comparatively broad, indicating an ageing population and generally low fertility with substantial survival to old age. A very broad base would imply a large child population and higher fertility, which conflicts with the data. Equal widths are also unsupported. Thus option B best matches the described age structure.

The governing concept is the difference between a population share and a dependency ratio. If working-age people aged 15–59 constitute 67 percent of the total population, everyone outside that group accounts for the dependent share: 100 − 67 = 33 percent. The stated ratio confirms the result: dependent people divided by working-age people, multiplied by 100, equals (33 ÷ 67) × 100, or approximately 49.3 dependents per 100 workers. Therefore option B, 33 percent, is correct. Option C is the ratio expressed per 100 working-age persons, not the dependent share of the total population. Options A and D do not follow from the given percentages.

The governing concept is that a favourable age structure creates only a potential demographic dividend, not an automatic economic result. Falling child dependency and a rising working-age share can provide more potential workers and fewer children to support. However, if the economy does not create enough productive jobs, many entrants may remain unemployed, work fewer hours than desired, or accept low-productivity employment. Consequently, unemployment and underemployment may increase, and the possible dividend may be lost or delayed. Option C identifies this labour-market risk. Options A and D are biologically and demographically impossible statements, while B incorrectly assumes that age structure alone guarantees economic gains.

The governing concept is total dependent share, which here is obtained by adding the child share and the elderly share. Initially, dependents account for 32 + 10 = 42 percent. After the change, they account for 20 + 16 = 36 percent. Therefore the total dependent share falls by 6 percentage points, even though the elderly share rises. The 12-point reduction in child dependency is larger than the 6-point increase in elderly dependency. Option A is correct. Option B reverses the arithmetic, option C ignores the elderly group, and option D overlooks the unequal changes in the two dependent categories. A lower combined dependent share may create a potential demographic-dividend period.

The governing concept is survival and cohort movement within age structure. A large child population represents a large birth cohort. When infant and child mortality are very low, most members of that cohort are likely to survive through childhood and adolescence and later enter working ages. This can enlarge the future labour supply and increase demand for secondary education, skills, health services and employment. It is an opportunity only if institutions and the economy can absorb the cohort; otherwise youth unemployment may become a problem. Option A states the direct demographic consequence. Options B, C and D make unsupported or contradictory claims about survival, immediate ageing and inevitable workforce decline.

The governing concept is the elderly dependency ratio, which compares the elderly population with the working-age population rather than with the total population. The formula is: elderly dependency ratio = (elderly population ÷ working-age population) × 100. Substituting the values gives (14 ÷ 56) × 100 = 0.25 × 100 = 25. Thus there are approximately 25 elderly people for every 100 working-age persons, so option C is correct. Option A mistakes the elderly share of the total population for the ratio. Option B does not result from the given division, and option D incorrectly uses the remaining population or another unrelated comparison.