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 Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of [#permalink]
25 Nov 2011, 13:40
79% (02:03) correct
21% (00:17) wrong based on 14 sessions
In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increased by 4.5 percent, and the total consumption of poultry products increased by 9.0 percent. During this time, the population of Eastland increased by 6 percent, in part due to new arrivals from surrounding areas.
Which of the following, if true, can one infer based on the statements above? A)For new arrivals to Eastland between 2000 and 2005, fish was less likely to be a major part of families’ diet than was poultry. B)In 2005, the residents of Eastland consumed twice as much poultry as fish. C)The per capita consumption of poultry in Eastland was higher in 2005 than it was in 2000. D)Between 2000 and 2005, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents. E)Between 2000 and 2005, the profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did the profits of wholesale distributors of fish.
Re: In Eastland........ [#permalink]
25 Nov 2011, 17:01
This is a very good practice question.
According to the stimulus,
Total fish comsumption = 4.5 percent increase Total consumption of poultry products = + 9.0 % increase Total Population = 6 % increase.
Since all the values given in the stimulus are percent increases, and we do not know the base value in 2000, we can eliminate B and D. E is irrelevant because profit is not mentioned anywhere. We can eliminate A as it requires us to assume that most of the population increase was due to the new arrivals.
C is the correct answer and can be proven from the information in the stimulus.