Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

It appears that you are browsing the GMAT Club forum unregistered!

Signing up is free, quick, and confidential.
Join other 500,000 members and get the full benefits of GMAT Club

Registration gives you:

Tests

Take 11 tests and quizzes from GMAT Club and leading GMAT prep companies such as Manhattan GMAT,
Knewton, and others. All are free for GMAT Club members.

Applicant Stats

View detailed applicant stats such as GPA, GMAT score, work experience, location, application
status, and more

Books/Downloads

Download thousands of study notes,
question collections, GMAT Club’s
Grammar and Math books.
All are free!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction worke [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Dec 2012, 04:55

42

This post was BOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

65% (03:12) correct
35% (02:33) wrong based on 1190 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction workers dropped from 16 percent on September 1, 1992, to 9 percent on September 1, 1996. If the number of construction workers was 20 percent greater on September 1, 1996, than on September 1, 1992, what was the approximate percent change in the number of unemployed construction workers over this period?

In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction workers dropped from 16 percent on September 1, 1992, to 9 percent on September 1, 1996. If the number of construction workers was 20 percent greater on September 1, 1996, than on September 1, 1992, what was the approximate percent change in the number of unemployed construction workers over this period?

Re: In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction worke [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Sep 2013, 06:37

From 92 - 96 -> 20% inc in # construction workers From 92 - 96 -> 7% dec in unemployment -> +7% to # of construction workers 20% + 7% = 27% -> (B -> 30%)

Re: In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction worke [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Nov 2013, 17:19

1

This post was BOOKMARKED

Walkabout wrote:

In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction workers dropped from 16 percent on September 1, 1992, to 9 percent on September 1, 1996. If the number of construction workers was 20 percent greater on September 1, 1996, than on September 1, 1992, what was the approximate percent change in the number of unemployed construction workers over this period?

Since the problem is percentage related, I just assumed the total number of workers in 1992 was 100. => total unemployed in 92 = 16 There was a 20% increase in the number of workers between 92 and 96 => Total workers in 96 = 100 + 100(20/100) = 120. There was a change of 9% in the unemployment rate from 92 to 96. => Total unemployed in 96 = 120 * 9/100 = 11 (approximately)

Now the actual question - change in the unemployed construction workers => (unemployed in 92 - unemployed in 96) / unemployed in 92 => (16-11)/16 * 100 = -30 approximately. => 30% decrease.

Re: In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction worke [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Apr 2014, 19:52

1

This post was BOOKMARKED

Walkabout wrote:

In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction workers dropped from 16 percent on September 1, 1992, to 9 percent on September 1, 1996. If the number of construction workers was 20 percent greater on September 1, 1996, than on September 1, 1992, what was the approximate percent change in the number of unemployed construction workers over this period?

This problem is a prime candidate for picking numbers. Since the question is dealing with percents I decided to go use 100. Once you pick easy to work with numbers just pick apart the questions slowly

Unemployment rate 1992 was 16% ---> I'm starting with 100 workers therefore 16 are unemployed

In 1996 the number of workers increased 20% ---> there are now 120 workers. ---> 9% unemployed would equal to 10.8% (the question uses the word approximately which told me I'm definitely rounding some numbers) so 11%

Percent change formula [Difference][/Original] X 100 = [5][/16] X 100 = ~30%

Re: In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction worke [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Jun 2014, 09:06

Walkabout wrote:

In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction workers dropped from 16 percent on September 1, 1992, to 9 percent on September 1, 1996. If the number of construction workers was 20 percent greater on September 1, 1996, than on September 1, 1992, what was the approximate percent change in the number of unemployed construction workers over this period?

OG question...Can anyone help me with the alternate solution [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Jul 2014, 22:49

In CountryC, the unemployment rate among construction workers dropped from 16 percent on September 1,1992, to 9 percent on September 1, 1996. If the number of construction workers was 20 percent greater on September 1,1996, than on September 1,1992, what was the approximate percent change in the number of unemployed construction workers over this period? (A) 50% decrease (B) 30% decrease (C) 15% decrease (D) 30% increase (E) 55% increase

In OG explanation is given but its too much time consuming and confusing for me. Anyone has tried any other way ??? Or anyone has tried to solve this question with pick number strategy...I tried but I am not getting correct answer.

Re: OG question...Can anyone help me with the alternate solution [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 Jul 2014, 00:06

GGMAT760 wrote:

In CountryC, the unemployment rate among construction workers dropped from 16 percent on September 1,1992, to 9 percent on September 1, 1996. If the number of construction workers was 20 percent greater on September 1,1996, than on September 1,1992, what was the approximate percent change in the number of unemployed construction workers over this period? (A) 50% decrease (B) 30% decrease (C) 15% decrease (D) 30% increase (E) 55% increase

In OG explanation is given but its too much time consuming and confusing for me. Anyone has tried any other way ??? Or anyone has tried to solve this question with pick number strategy...I tried but I am not getting correct answer.

Please explain

Thanks in advance.

1992 1996 No of construction workers 100 120 Unemployment Rate 16% 9% Unemployed workers 16 11

% change in unemployed workers=(16-11)=5/16=~33% decrease Closest ans=30% decrease Ans=B

Re: In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction worke [#permalink]

Show Tags

11 Sep 2014, 11:57

Walkabout wrote:

In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction workers dropped from 16 percent on September 1, 1992, to 9 percent on September 1, 1996. If the number of construction workers was 20 percent greater on September 1, 1996, than on September 1, 1992, what was the approximate percent change in the number of unemployed construction workers over this period?

Yes, you can do it using the successive percentage change concept too.

Number of unemployed construction workers = Number of Construction Workers * Unemployment rate

If there is a change in the number of construction workers and unemployment rate, we can find the change in the number of unemployed construction workers.

Number of construction workers is 20% greater i.e. 6/5 of previous value Unemployment rate reduces from 16 to 9 i.e. becomes 9/16 of previous value

Multiplier for number of unemployed construction workers = 6/5 * 9/16 = 27/40

This is a reduction of 13/40 which is a little more than 30%.

Re: In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction worke [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Oct 2014, 03:07

monkeya41 wrote:

From 92 - 96 -> 20% inc in # construction workers From 92 - 96 -> 7% dec in unemployment ->+7% to # of construction workers 20% + 7% = 27% -> (B -> 30%)

Anyone could explain how 7% increase formulates the 20%+7% and how can I get the decrease/increase result from this?

Re: In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction worke [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Nov 2015, 12:02

Hello from the GMAT Club BumpBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________

Re: In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction worke [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Dec 2015, 19:51

solved it the way bunuel explained. 92 - 1000 workers, 160 unemployed. 96 - 1200 workers, 108 unemployed. we can see the number decreased. we can eliminate the answer choices that say "increase". moreover, if you think logically, 52 is not 50% of 160, thus we can eliminate it. Moreover, 16=10% and 8 = 5%. decrease of 15% should be 24 workers, which again not works. thus, the only option that is possible - 30%

Re: In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction worke [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Jun 2016, 11:49

Walkabout wrote:

In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction workers dropped from 16 percent on September 1, 1992, to 9 percent on September 1, 1996. If the number of construction workers was 20 percent greater on September 1, 1996, than on September 1, 1992, what was the approximate percent change in the number of unemployed construction workers over this period?

We are given two pieces of information that can be translated into equations. However, before we make those equations let’s set up some variables as well to display some of the information provided.

16% = unemployment rate on September 1, 1992

9% = unemployment rate on September 1, 1996

c = number of construction workers on September 1, 1992

d = number of construction workers on September 1, 1996

Thus, we know:

0.16 × c = number of unemployed construction workers on September 1, 1992

0.09 × d = number of unemployed construction workers on September 1, 1996

We are asked to determine the approximate percent change in the number of unemployed construction workers over this period.

The formula for percent change is:

[(New Value – Old Value)/(Old Value)] x 100

Using our variables above, the percent change formula will be:

(0.09d – 0.16c)/(0.16c) × 100

In order to solve this formula we need to create an equation. We are given that the number of construction workers was 20% greater on September 1, 1996 than on September 1, 1992. Thus, we can say:

d = c + 0.2c = 1.2c

We can now substitute 1.2c for d in our percent change equation:

[(0.09 × 1.2c – 0.16c)/(0.16c)] × 100

[(0.108c – 0.16c)/(0.16c)] × 100

[(108c – 160c)/(160c)] × 100

[(-52c)/(160c)] × 100

(-13/40) × 100

Since we are asked to approximate we can change -13/40 to -13/39, which reduces to -1/3. We now have:

-1/3 × 100 = -33.3%

The closest answer to this is B, a 30% decrease.

Because the answer choices are in percentage form, there is another way to solve this question: we can use convenient numbers. Let’s say the number of construction workers in 1992 is 100. We know, therefore, that the number of workers in 1996 is 1.2 × 100 = 120 workers.

We know that the unemployment rate among construction workers dropped from 16% on September 1, 1992 to 9% on September 1, 1996.

Thus we can say that the number of unemployed construction workers in 1992 is:

0.16 × 100 = 16

And the number of unemployed construction workers in 1996 is:

120 × 0.09 = 10.8 which is about 11.

We can now get the percent change:

[(New Value – Old Value)/(Old Value)] × 100

Using our values above the percent change formula will be:

[(11 – 16)/16] × 100

(–5/16) × 100

-5/16 is about -5/15, which reduces to -1/3. Again, -1/3 × 100 = -33.3%, which is closest to answer B.
_________________

Jeffrey Miller Scott Woodbury-Stewart Founder and CEO

Re: In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction worke [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Jun 2016, 05:18

monkeya41 wrote:

From 92 - 96 -> 20% inc in # construction workers From 92 - 96 -> 7% dec in unemployment -> +7% to # of construction workers 20% + 7% = 27% -> (B -> 30%)

Re: In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction worke [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Aug 2016, 10:15

bimalr9 wrote:

monkeya41 wrote:

From 92 - 96 -> 20% inc in # construction workers From 92 - 96 -> 7% dec in unemployment -> +7% to # of construction workers 20% + 7% = 27% -> (B -> 30%)

Is the above reasoning correct?

This approach latches on the word 'approximate' in the question. First of all, there were more people working in 1996 (20% more than 1992). The % of unemployment in 1996 is lower than 1992 (only 9% compared 16% of 1992). So you have more people working and out of that smaller % unemployed. Meaning, definitely overall fewer people were unemployed in 1996 i.e. DECREASE.

Then, roughly speaking, 20% increase in workers + 7% change in unemployment is 27%. You have two choices closest to 27%. 30% increase or 30% decrease. We already know it is an overall decrease for sure. So it must be APPROXIMATELY 30% overall decrease.

A very neat and quick solution but more error prone if you can't quickly wrap your head around a bunch of numbers being thrown at you. I'd better stick with a number picking solution unless I am on a time crunch mode and I must guestimate a couple of questions.

gmatclubot

Re: In Country C, the unemployment rate among construction worke
[#permalink]
12 Aug 2016, 10:15

After days of waiting, sharing the tension with other applicants in forums, coming up with different theories about invites patterns, and, overall, refreshing my inbox every five minutes to...

I was totally freaking out. Apparently, most of the HBS invites were already sent and I didn’t get one. However, there are still some to come out on...

In early 2012, when I was working as a biomedical researcher at the National Institutes of Health , I decided that I wanted to get an MBA and make the...