Section I - Multiple Choice (1 Viewer)

[bineal]

if we can go back to economics, which is what this thread is about,

@ number 11, is D possible? i probably read too much into it, but if the dollar has appreciated, it is likely that it has been induced by increased demand from overseas, which would've occurred in the event of an interest rate rise, meaning increased capital inflow. I had B as my answer

@ 12, has it occurred to anyone that C is the answer because they want people to use the formula properly, not assume that since HDI has increased, Real GDP must have increased as well? The syllabus expects you to know the formula and even though economics is based on assumptions, I'm fairly sure they'd be testing the formula rather than an assumption, ( i say this because during the test i myself thought it was strange that real GDP growth would decrease in the event of economic development, but the formula stated otherwise). I chose C based on the formula for real GDP, which in the Tim Riley HSC economics textbook is stated as:

Real GDP = Nominal GDP x 100
------------- ----
1 CPI

from which you get 4615.38 for year 1
and 4533.3 for year 2, clearly less.

@ 19, this question is badly worded as there is no consensus on how long the worker has been retrenched for. retrenchment is dismissal based on operational requirements, so one who is retrenched is presumably still wanting a job. in the instance of one being retrenched, they would be classified as unemployed or even "underemployed", because they have lost their job despite still having the want to work. So as the question states, "IF people retrenched from their jobs, did not actively seek employment", the retrenched must be assumed to part of the labour force's unemployed. If they do not actively seek employment, then they are not counted in the labour force. For those people who say they go from retrenched straight to not actively seeking, this is impossible. an approximately four week leeway MUST be given. Think about it hypothetically, i've just been retrenched, so i am UNEMPLOYED. the ABS surveys for labour force every four weeks. even if i have chosen not to actively seek work, for those four weeks, the ABS will not know this and i will be assumed to be part of the labour force, yes?

Thus after that, in terms of the unemployment rate, (again another fallacy on behalf of the board), is that it may differ depending on the number unemployed, compared to the labour force obviously.

according to the unemployment rate formula

unemployed = total number unemployed 100
--------------------------------------- x ----
labour force (employed + unemployed) 1

using these figures for before retrenching

100 = labour force
10 = unemployed

10/100 x 100/1 = 10%

AFTER retrenching, assuming that 5 or so of the unemployed leave,

5/95 x 100/1 = 5.25%

similarly, with the figures

100 = L.F.
50 = unemployed

50/100 x 100/1 = 50%

and

45/95 x 100/1 = 47.36%


therefore the unemployment rate must be lower as well, so the answer is A.

this is because, as a proportion, the number leaving the unemployed will always be higher than the number leaving the whole labour force.

i.e. for 50 unemployed/100, 5 people leaving would be 10% leaving the unemployed however only 5% leaving the labour force.

 

[bineal]

ah damn, sorry about the formatting of the formulas, but i think you can all work it out from that

 

[daniel81]

if we can go back to economics, which is what this thread is about,

@ 19, this question is badly worded as there is no consensus on how long the worker has been retrenched for. retrenchment is dismissal based on operational requirements, so one who is retrenched is presumably still wanting a job. in the instance of one being retrenched, they would be classified as unemployed or even "underemployed", because they have lost their job despite still having the want to work. So as the question states, "IF people retrenched from their jobs, did not actively seek employment", the retrenched must be assumed to part of the labour force's unemployed. If they do not actively seek employment, then they are not counted in the labour force. For those people who say they go from retrenched straight to not actively seeking, this is impossible. an approximately four week leeway MUST be given. Think about it hypothetically, i've just been retrenched, so i am UNEMPLOYED. the ABS surveys for labour force every four weeks. even if i have chosen not to actively seek work, for those four weeks, the ABS will not know this and i will be assumed to be part of the labour force, yes?

Thus after that, in terms of the unemployment rate, (again another fallacy on behalf of the board), is that it may differ depending on the number unemployed, compared to the labour force obviously.

according to the unemployment rate formula

unemployed = total number unemployed 100
--------------------------------------- x ----
labour force (employed + unemployed) 1

using these figures for before retrenching

100 = labour force
10 = unemployed

10/100 x 100/1 = 10%

AFTER retrenching, assuming that 5 or so of the unemployed leave,

5/95 x 100/1 = 5.25%

similarly, with the figures

100 = L.F.
50 = unemployed

50/100 x 100/1 = 50%

and

45/95 x 100/1 = 47.36%


therefore the unemployment rate must be lower as well, so the answer is A.

this is because, as a proportion, the number leaving the unemployed will always be higher than the number leaving the whole labour force.

i.e. for 50 unemployed/100, 5 people leaving would be 10% leaving the unemployed however only 5% leaving the labour force.

Sorry, but I think you're looking too deeply into the retrenchement issue here. Its a mark of intelligence that people tend to overthink the multiple choice - But I think when they said retrenchment and NOT seeking work just meant that they are going from being employed to not employed.

So, then we have a labour force of 100 with 10 unemployed, 90 employed.

Initially we have an unemployment rate of: 10/100 = 10%.

5 people are now retrenched (i.e. become unemployed) and are no longer seeking work. After those people have been removed from the labour force we have an unemployment rate of: 10/95 = >10%.

Thats how I read it anyway.

Cheers, Daniel

 

[bineal]

haha yeah you're right i guess, daniel. it'll be interesting to see what they give as the correct answers for these questions

 

[slev]

DMT I am so smart, that the illusion is that I appear stupid. I actualy asked for Band 5 and Band 6 cut off marks, not just band 6...thought id let yu know that, and when someone said 88 i thought that was popostrous, so voiced my valued opinion. as i am a valued member on this board who contributes valid arguements. e.g question 1 in the business studies test being consumer market, not niche. See even when i am wrong, i usualy can proove i am right. thats how smart i am, which will be the distinguishing factor, that may boost my atar past 80, as estimated in an atar estimate thread i posted. and then take over the world by going to u.w.s.

WTF!!!!!!
This la bomba kid sounds like the biggest tool. "i am a pure mesomorph, 7% bodyfat" what a fukn tool. Yeah thanks heaps u internet tough guy. I bet u are a small little freak, all u "wogs" are, especially little ukranian men. Chicks do not go after u, only ugly ones, once again, just as dmt has said, stop convincing urself that u are good. U are not. Period. What a freak !!!!! DMT, i fully support u bro! Lets get back to eco now.

Oh yeah, and a atar of 80 is not that good, so you are techincally not that smart as u are trying to convince every1 in your post u fool.

 

[gurmies]

WTF!!!!!!
This la bomba kid sounds like the biggest tool. "i am a pure mesomorph, 7% bodyfat" what a fukn tool. Yeah thanks heaps u internet tough guy. I bet u are a small little freak, all u "wogs" are, especially little ukranian men. Chicks do not go after u, only ugly ones, once again, just as dmt has said, stop convincing urself that u are good. U are not. Period. What a freak !!!!! DMT, i fully support u bro! Lets get back to eco now.

Oh yeah, and a atar of 80 is not that good, so you are techincally not that smart as u are trying to convince every1 in your post u fool.

Lol, Ukrainians would fuck your shit up. Any Eastern Europeans =]

 

[slev]

Lol, Ukrainians would fuck your shit up. Any Eastern Europeans =]

By the looks of it, u are a eastern european!!!! well of course u think ur awesome, but the rest of the world has left u behind both socially and even (how ironic) economically. STFU u are, much like la bomba trying to idolise yourself. U guys must be so powerful, thats why ur economies and armies are so strong and u own the world. Oh wait, no u dont. But yeah, whateva dude.

 

[RaMaNa]

lmaoooo la bomba, if u get 80 ATAR, doesnt mean u are top 20%.
getting 90 means u are top 15%, hahahhaa.
and stop talking urself up lol, u jst got proved wrong in a question, and u still think ur king shit.
oh and btw, 80 ATAR isnt sumfin u should b boasting about

 

[La Bomba]

no i said id beat 80% of the yr 12 state. and slev is jus dmt92 in disguise, continuing to be a player hater caus he jus jealous that he cant get any chiks. its caus like... all us wogs get so many, theres none left for him lmao. he'd prob be the sort who chicks use to buy them drinks, then walk off. where as i all i have to do is yell out the window of my car. and eastern/southern europeans are "so powerful" thats y u see them dominating so many sports e.g tennis, weightlifting.

 

[slev]

no i said id beat 80% of the yr 12 state. and slev is jus dmt92 in disguise, continuing to be a player hater caus he jus jealous that he cant get any chiks. its caus like... all us wogs get so many, theres none left for him lmao. he'd prob be the sort who chicks use to buy them drinks, then walk off. where as i all i have to do is yell out the window of my car. and eastern/southern europeans are "so powerful" thats y u see them dominating so many sports e.g tennis, weightlifting.

DMT in disguise. WTF! u talkin about bro. Bro, nobody has the time do do shit like that, u just paranoid u tool.
anyways, tennis players are as thin as sticks, and i believe it is western europeans who dominate tennis, there are heaps of eastern europeans, i agree, but they all suck, just like u bro, they just try hards, so many of them, but they cant ever b number 1 or 2. coz they cant act normally, and reckon their awesome so they break their racquets and swear, a surefire sign of their lack of intelligence, like u and ur low atar.............

 

[slev]

i often use these message boards just to read posts and see whats happenin, coz i did my hsc last year and can relate to many students and their situations. bUT after reading your unintelligent and stupid remarks, and u always trying to prove that your better than every1 else, i had to intervene. U are not better than any1 else, and u are not going to get 80. i looked at your profile on the bos and someone predicted u for atar of like 71, that is plain shit dude, u dont deserve to judge anyone, stop postin bro, and fix urself up, i am not a player hater, i just dont think ur a player, ur just a tool to me. Oh and in a previous post you said that u had 16 inch arms, and in ur profile u have posted a picture of yourself, with supposedly "16 inch arms", well u actually dont, and ur right hand is lacking muscle, whilst ur left may be slightly stronger, im guessing u enjoy 'playing with yourself', and under these circumstances, yes u are a player , TOOL.