I submitted this question yesterday also,but i was highly unsatisfied with the response as it didnt make any sense and was not related to the question at all, whoever gave that response simply copy pasted the same answer that was already available on chegg. I had submitted my question again to get a proper answer not the same answer again Pls give me a proper answer to all the parts.

From 1600 to 1850 , the Chinese population increased from 160 to 400 million, while real GDP per capita decreased from $1,125 to $900. During the same period, the population of England was multiplied by a factor of 5 and its real GDP per capita by a factor of 2.5. The two economies were in a Malthusian state throughout this period. According to the Malthusian model, Note: assume a fifth of income is generated by land or technology (=1/5). (a) What should have been the increase in productivity so as to generate (alone) this increase in population in China? (b) Suppose that, with the European Marriage Pattern (henceforth EMP, that is the fact that, after the 16th century, women married at a more advanced age in Western Europe than in China), Chinese society placed more value on children than before while, because of social constraints, the cost of raising children increased in Western Europe. Why can the EMP explain the observed dynamics of income per capita in China? (c) What should have been the change (in percentage) in the parameter of the model capturing the EMP in China so as to generate (alone) the observed dynamics of income per capita in China? (d) What should have been the impact of the EMP on population in China? Is this consistent with the fact that population increased by a factor of 2.5 ? Note: assume a fifth of income is generated by land or technology (=1/5). (e) What should have been the change in productivity so as to generate (together with the EMP) these changes in population and income per capita in China? (f) In light of this, why did the transition from stagnation to growth took place in the UK first, and not in China? From 1600 to 1850 , the Chinese population increased from 160 to 400 million, while real GDP per capita decreased from $1,125 to $900. During the same period, the population of England was multiplied by a factor of 5 and its real GDP per capita by a factor of 2.5. The two economies were in a Malthusian state throughout this period. According to the Malthusian model, Note: assume a fifth of income is generated by land or technology (=1/5). (a) What should have been the increase in productivity so as to generate (alone) this increase in population in China? (b) Suppose that, with the European Marriage Pattern (henceforth EMP, that is the fact that, after the 16th century, women married at a more advanced age in Western Europe than in China), Chinese society placed more value on children than before while, because of social constraints, the cost of raising children increased in Western Europe. Why can the EMP explain the observed dynamics of income per capita in China? (c) What should have been the change (in percentage) in the parameter of the model capturing the EMP in China so as to generate (alone) the observed dynamics of income per capita in China? (d) What should have been the impact of the EMP on population in China? Is this consistent with the fact that population increased by a factor of 2.5 ? Note: assume a fifth of income is generated by land or technology (=1/5). (e) What should have been the change in productivity so as to generate (together with the EMP) these changes in population and income per capita in China? (f) In light of this, why did the transition from stagnation to growth took place in the UK first, and not in China