Question: Read the passage and answer the question that follows it.
In a recent report, the gross enrolment ratios at the primary level, that is, the number of children enrolled in classes one to five as a proportion of all children aged 6 to 10, were shown to be very high for most states; in many cases they were way above 100 percent! These figures are not worth anything, since they are based on the official enrolment data compiled from school records. They might as well stand for ‘gross exaggeration ratios’.
Which one of the following options best supports the claim that the ratios are exaggerated?
The report indicates that most children between ages 6 and 10 are enrolled in classes. This has been shown as a high gross enrolment ratio. The author believes this ratio is exaggerated.
Option 1 is tricky. If children above 10 years and below 6 years are not excluded (or rather have been erroneously or otherwise been included), then the number of children counted increases. If that higher number is in the numerator, the ratio becomes higher and it will support the author’s observation that the numbers are inflated. However it is not clear from the data given as to the percentage this constitutes in the inflated number. It may be small or big. It is not clear.
Option 2 states that many children enrolled are not attending classes regularly (are very irregular), but it still means that they are enrolled!
Option 4 is unrelated- even if the number of children in the age group 6-10 is declining there is no mention of what percentage of those are enrolled in classes. Therefore, both options 2 and 4 can be eliminated.
Option 3 is our best bet. It states that 22 percent of enrolled children in class one are below six years of age – that means that the data used to calculate the gross enrolment ratio is erroneous, straight and clear because the data is meant only for children aged between 6 and 10. Option 3 scores over option 1 because it is explicit and precise.
Hence, the correct answer is option 3.