Question

The table below shows the drop-out rates, in percentage, at the Primary level (Classes I-V), the Elementary level (Classes I-VIII), and the Secondary level (Classes I-X) in India, separately for boys, girls, and the total, for the years 1996-97 to 2004-05.

Gender bias is defined as the disproportion between the drop-out rate of boys and the drop-out rate of girls, at a given level.

Based on the data above, choose the true statement from the following.

• A. Gender bias in primary education has steadily gone down over the years.
• B. Gender bias goes down as students move from primary to secondary classes.
• C. The total drop-out rate went down steadily for primary level children from 1996-97 to 2004-05.
• D. None of the above.

Hint:

Try to find just one year that breaks each claim; a single counter-example is enough to rule a "consistently" statement out.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

The quickest way to test each claim about this drop-out table is to hunt for a single year that breaks it, since one counter-example is enough to call a "consistently" or "always" claim false.

1. Gender bias in primary education has steadily gone down over the years: check three consecutive years. From 1996-97 to 1997-98 the primary gap between girls and boys widens from $40.9-39.7=1.2$ to $41.5-37.5=4.0$, a rise, not a fall. This one jump already rules the claim out.
2. Gender bias goes down as students move from primary to secondary classes: take the very first row, 1996-97. The primary gap is $1.2$, but the secondary gap is $73.7-67.3=6.4$, more than five times bigger. Bias clearly goes up, not down, so this claim fails immediately.
3. The total drop-out rate went down steadily for primary level children from 1996-97 to 2004-05: the primary total column reads $40.2$, $39.2$, $41.5$, and so on. Going from 1997-98 to 1998-99 the number rises from $39.2$ to $41.5$. A steady fall cannot include a rise, so this claim is also false.
4. None of the above: since each of the first three claims has been broken by a direct year by year check, and the remaining claim about secondary bias always being the largest also fails, since in 1999-2000 the elementary gap of $6.0$ beats the secondary gap of $4.0$, the only statement left standing is that none of the listed claims hold.

So the correct choice is that none of the given statements about the table are true.

Let's summarize:

• A single counter-example year is enough to kill a "consistently" or "always" style claim.
• Every one of the four specific claims here breaks in at least one year, so the safe pick is "none of the above."

So the true statement is that none of the given options correctly describes the data.