Line graph showing "The Dwindling Remittances of Filipinos Working in Japan (In US Thousand Dollars)". What does it conclude? Explain why other choices are incorrect.

Question

Year 1999 = 295,000 Remittance. Year 2000 = 297,000 Remittance. Year 2001 = 400,000 Remittance. Year 2002 = 500,000 Remittance. Year 2003 = 350,000 Remittance. Year 2004 = 310,000 Remittance. Year 2005 = 130,000 Remittance. Choices are: a. The downward remittance of Filipinos working in Japan is higher in terms of cost of living in Japan. b. The downward remittance of Filipinos working in Japan is approximately lower wage pays of Filipinos in Japan. c. There is a peak remittance in the year 2002 as compared to the downward remittance in the year 2005. d. There is a downward remittance of Filipinos working in Japan from 1999 to 2005. e. There is a parabolic trend.

Answer 1

Answer c seems to describe the situation best.

Answer a: cost of living is not necessarily related to remittance. There are no figures for cost of living. So a is irrelevant

Answer b: pay is not necessarily related to remittance. There are no figures for wages. So b is irrelevant.

Answer c: confirms the peak year in 2002 and the decline in 2005.

Answer d: ignores the detail of what happened between 1999 and 2005, so misses the peak in 2002.

Answer e: a parabola would show a decline similar to the rise. But the curve appears to be asymmetrical, because the decline is steeper than the rise. So e does not describe the behaviour well.