Age Structure

The child dependency ratio compares the number of children with the number of working-age people, then expresses the result per 100 working-age persons. The formula is \(\text{child dependency ratio}=\frac{\text{child population}}{\text{working-age population}}\times100\). It is not calculated by simply reading the child percentage as the ratio.

Here, children are 21 percent and working-age people are 63 percent. Thus, \(\frac{21}{63}\times100=\frac{1}{3}\times100\approx33.3\). Rounded to the nearest whole number, this is about 33 children per 100 working-age persons. Therefore, option C is correct. The value 21 would confuse a population share with a dependency ratio.

Dependency has two components: children and older persons. Initially, the dependent share is \(35+5=40\) percent. After the change, it is \(25+15=40\) percent. Since the working-age share remains unchanged, the total number of dependants relative to the whole population has not changed. What has changed is the balance within the dependent group: the child share has fallen by 10 percentage points, while the elderly share has risen by 10 percentage points.

Therefore, option C is correct. The composition of dependants has shifted from mainly young dependants toward older dependants. It would be incorrect to say total dependency increased or decreased, because the two dependent shares still add to 40 percent. The working-age share also has not doubled; the question explicitly states that it remains constant. This distinction is important because total dependency and the age composition of dependency describe different demographic features.

Elderly dependency is determined primarily by the number of older people relative to the working-age population. A small child population may indicate that fertility has fallen and that ageing could become stronger in the future, but it does not by itself make current elderly dependency high. If the working-age group is still large, it provides a large denominator in the ratio, keeping the current elderly burden moderate unless the elderly population is also very large. Option B is false because fewer children do not eliminate older people. Options C and D confuse distinct demographic measures. Therefore, A is correct.

A population pyramid records the relative size of different age cohorts. The 0–4 group represents births during the most recent five-year period, while the 5–14 groups represent children born earlier. If the older child cohorts are much larger than the youngest cohort, fewer children have been born recently than in preceding years. A recent decline in fertility is therefore the most direct explanation. A sharp rise in fertility would enlarge the 0–4 group, not make it smaller. Elderly growth is unrelated to this immediate contrast, and young-adult migration cannot be described as the only possible cause. Thus, A is correct.

The child dependency ratio compares the population of children with the working-age population, not with the total population. The standard calculation is: child dependency ratio = (child population ÷ working-age population) × 100. Substituting the given values gives (30 ÷ 50) × 100 = 60. Thus, there are 60 children for every 100 working-age people. Option A is only the child share of the total population, and option B is the working-age share. Option D does not follow from the stated figures. Therefore, option C is correct. The ratio helps planners estimate likely pressure on schools, child health, nutrition, and household support.

The total dependency ratio is calculated as (dependent population ÷ working-age population) × 100. Dependents generally include children and older persons, while the working-age group is the comparison base. Therefore, a ratio of 120 means that for every 100 working-age people, there are 120 dependents. It is not a statement that dependents constitute 120 percent of the total population; population shares cannot exceed 100 percent. Option A reverses the relationship, and option D refers only to children and uses the wrong denominator. Hence, option B is correct and indicates a considerable support burden on the working-age population.

Total dependency is obtained by adding child dependency and elderly dependency, because both groups are compared with the same working-age base. Initially, total dependency = 70 + 10 = 80. After the change, it equals 40 + 25 = 65. Thus, total dependency falls from 80 to 65, a decline of 15 points. The reduction of 30 points in child dependency is larger than the 15-point increase in elderly dependency, so the net result is a decrease. Option C reports only the new child value, while options A and D use incorrect totals. Therefore, option B is correct.

The total dependency ratio is the sum of child dependency and elderly dependency. Both components are calculated relative to the working-age population, so they can be added and subtracted directly. If total dependency is 65 and child dependency is 35, then elderly dependency is \(65-35=30\).

The answer is therefore 30, which is option C. A ratio of 30 means that, for every 100 people in the working-age group, the elderly dependent component corresponds to 30 people, according to the ratio’s usual interpretation. The calculation does not require the actual size of the population because both given ratios use the same denominator. The other numerical choices do not satisfy the stated total when added to the child dependency.

The elderly population is found by multiplying the total population by the proportion aged 65 and above. The calculation is 50 million × 16 ÷ 100 = 8 million. In the Indian numbering system, 50 million equals 5 crore, and 8 million equals 80 lakh. Therefore, option C is correct. Option A represents 12 percent of 50 million, option B represents 14 percent, and option D represents 18 percent, so none of those values matches the stated 16 percent. The calculation assumes that the given percentage applies to the entire population and that the units are converted consistently.

The elderly dependency ratio compares the elderly population with the working-age population. People aged 20 to 34 are generally in the working-age group. Their in-migration can increase the working-age population, the denominator of the ratio, while the number of elderly residents may change little immediately. As a result, the ratio may decline. Therefore, option B is correct; it describes a possible effect, not a guaranteed one.

The number of births depends partly on how many people are in reproductive ages, as well as on fertility rates. Out-migration of many people aged 25 to 40 can reduce the number of potential parents in the region. If fertility rates among those who remain do not change, the smaller reproductive-age population may result in fewer births. Therefore, option A is correct. The effect is possible rather than certain because fertility rates and other factors also matter.

A broad 15 to 24 age group means many young people are approaching or entering higher education, vocational training, and the labour market. The comparatively narrow 0 to 9 group suggests less immediate pressure to expand primary-school places than to prepare for the needs of this larger youth cohort. Skills training, higher education, and employment opportunities are therefore the most immediate planning priorities. Option B is correct. Primary education and infant vaccination remain important services, but the age pattern points most directly to the needs of young people.

Older people make up 28 percent of the population, twice the 14 percent share of children. This suggests that services such as elderly health care, chronic-disease treatment, accessibility, and long-term care may need particular planning attention. Therefore, option A is the best answer. The percentages alone do not determine exact budgets or prove that elderly services will cost more than education; they indicate an important demographic pressure. Primary education remains necessary, and different age groups have different service needs.

The elderly dependency ratio is (elderly population ÷ working-age population) × 100. Let the working-age share be W. Then (24 ÷ W) × 100 = 40, so W = 24 × 100 ÷ 40 = 60%. The figures are consistent with mutually exclusive age groups: the remaining 16% can be below working age. Therefore, option A is correct.

Population share and spending are different measures. The cost and type of services needed by each group can differ, so equal population shares do not require equal budgets. For example, elderly health care may involve costly or ongoing treatment, while child-related spending may focus on education. Option A is the appropriate conclusion.

The working-age group is 15–64 years, so the dependent groups are children aged 0–14 and older people aged 65 and above. The total dependency ratio is \(\frac{21+16}{63}\times100=\frac{37}{63}\times100\approx58.7\). The old-age dependency ratio is \(\frac{16}{63}\times100\approx25.4\). The question asks for the difference between these two ratios, not the total ratio alone.

Subtracting gives approximately \(58.7-25.4=33.3\). Thus the difference is about 33, so option B is correct. An equivalent shortcut is to notice that the total ratio includes both child and old-age dependency, while the difference leaves only child dependency: \(\frac{21}{63}\times100\approx33.3\). Rounding explains the listed value.

A fixed working-age boundary classifies people by age, not by whether they actually work. If retirement occurs later and older adults remain healthy and economically active, many people above the traditional boundary may still be employed, self-employed, or contributing through paid work. Counting all of them as dependants can therefore overstate the dependency burden. Option A is correct.

Age structure remains important, but a conventional limit such as 60 or 65 is only a statistical simplification. The real economic-support relationship also depends on labour-force participation, health, pensions, employment conditions, and unpaid work. The other options are incorrect: older people can work, retirement age is related to economic activity, and not all young people are unemployed. A flexible interpretation gives a more accurate picture.

A rapidly growing 45–64 age group will move into retirement and older age over the following decades. This can increase demand for pension payments, geriatric health care, medicines, long-term care, accessible housing, and support services. Many people in this cohort may also remain economically active if workplaces offer suitable roles, updated skills, and flexible arrangements.

Therefore option B is the most forward-looking: pension reform, elderly health planning, and reskilling address both future support needs and continued participation. Expanding only primary schools does not prepare for the approaching age transition. Ending child vaccination or youth employment policy would create harm and ignore other continuing needs. The policy should anticipate change while preserving services for all generations.

The dependency ratio compares the dependent population with the working-age population, usually as a percentage: \(\mathrm{Dependency\ ratio}=\frac{D}{W}\times100\). Here the working-age share is 65 percent of the total population, and the ratio is 53.85. Let the dependent share be \(x\) percent. Then \(\frac{x}{65}\times100=53.85\). Rearranging gives \(x=\frac{53.85\times65}{100}=35.0025\), approximately 35 percent.

Therefore, option B is correct. Option D confuses the dependency ratio with the dependent share of the total population. The ratio uses working-age people as its denominator, whereas the requested percentage uses the entire population as its denominator. The small decimal difference is due to rounding in the given ratio. The supplied answer and method are mathematically consistent.

Population ageing and total population growth are different measurements. Ageing means that the average age rises or that older people form a larger share of the population. Total population growth means that the number of people increases. These two trends can occur at the same time.

For example, improved survival may increase the number of older people, while births and immigration may still add enough people to make the total population grow rapidly. A rising average age therefore does not prove that the population is declining, that births have stopped, or that ageing occurs only during decline. Option B is the most accurate conclusion because it recognizes both processes together.

An unusually large share of people aged 18–29 can result from selective migration. Universities, jobs and urban opportunities often attract young adults from other places, so the age structure of the receiving region may become youthful even if its past birth rate was not exceptionally high. Population composition records who is present now, not only the births that occurred there in earlier years.

Option A is therefore the cautious conclusion. The age bulge is not necessarily evidence of high fertility alone. It does not mean that elderly people are absent, because older residents may still live there, and it does not deny migration’s effect. Nor were all young adults necessarily born locally. The correct interpretation considers both natural change and age-selective movement.

The old-age dependency ratio is calculated from age groups, not from each person's actual employment or income. A value of 30 generally means that there are 30 people above the selected old-age threshold for every 100 people in the conventional working-age group. It treats them as potential dependents for a broad demographic comparison.

However, if half of those aged 65 and above are employed, many may earn income and contribute to household or national production. Their real economic dependence can therefore be lower than the age-based measure suggests. Option A is correct. The ratio does not become zero, not every older person is fully dependent, and employment status clearly has economic relevance.

The youth dependency ratio compares the child population with the working-age population. It is calculated as children divided by working-age people, multiplied by 100. Here, children make up 24 percent of the total population, and the ratio is 40. We can use the ratio to find the working-age share, provided both percentages refer to the same total population.

Let the working-age share be W percent. Then 24 ÷ W × 100 = 40. Rearranging gives W = 24 × 100 ÷ 40 = 60 percent. Therefore, option C is correct. The remaining 40 percent is not automatically the working-age share; it is the dependency ratio value, expressed as a ratio relative to workers. Option D is simply the non-child share and ignores the stated ratio.

A percentage is a group’s share of the total population, while an absolute number is the actual count of people in that group. The working-age population can rise in number but fall in percentage if the total population rises even faster. For example, the group might increase from 60 to 70 people while children and older people increase so much that the total grows from 100 to 120. The share then falls from 60% to about 58.3%.

Option A is correct because faster growth in other age groups can reduce the working-age group’s percentage despite its numerical increase. A declining total with stable other groups would not normally produce the stated pattern, and the group is clearly not zero. Percentages and absolute numbers therefore need not move in the same direction. The key is the changing denominator, or total population.

A large young population can become a demographic dividend only when people can gain education, health, skills and productive employment. If higher education and training places are too limited, many young people may enter the labour market without the qualifications employers need. If jobs are also insufficient, they may remain unemployed, work fewer hours than desired or accept low-productivity work. The potential advantage then creates social and economic pressure instead of growth.

Choice B is correct because unemployment and underemployment are the direct risks of an inadequately prepared young population. A shortage of training would not create an oversupply of skilled labour. Ageing does not immediately end, and the dependency ratio cannot become zero merely because the youth share is large. Policies that expand schooling, skills, health and job creation are needed to convert population size into a benefit.