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.

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]
15 Aug 2009, 01:10

1

This post was BOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

80% (02:03) correct
20% (02:20) wrong based on 37 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: consumption Eastland [#permalink]
15 Aug 2009, 03:54

8

This post received KUDOS

A. is incorrect, since we only have info about the total consumption of poultry/fish. What if two families ate something like 2 tons of chicken and 1000 families ate something like 2 pounds of fish every day?

B. the passage does not provide info about the quantities of fish/poultry consumed, it just points out their respective gains.

C. is correct. Look at it mathematically: population in 2000 = x population in 2005 = 106% *x

poultry in 2000 = y poultry in 2005 = 109% *y

per capita poultry consumption in 2000 = y/x per capita poultry consumption in 2005 = 109%y/106%x = y/x * 109/106 > y/x

D. no info to establish this

E. profits are not discussed here. Indeed, the amount sold was greater, but what if costs increased significantly, say by 20%? Then the profits go down...

Re: consumption Eastland [#permalink]
17 Aug 2009, 09:12

DanaJ wrote:

A. is incorrect, since we only have info about the total consumption of poultry/fish. What if two families ate something like 2 tons of chicken and 1000 families ate something like 2 pounds of fish every day?

B. the passage does not provide info about the quantities of fish/poultry consumed, it just points out their respective gains.

C. is correct. Look at it mathematically: population in 2000 = x population in 2005 = 106% *x

poultry in 2000 = y poultry in 2005 = 109% *y

per capita poultry consumption in 2000 = y/x per capita poultry consumption in 2005 = 109%y/106%x = y/x * 109/106 > y/x

D. no info to establish this

E. profits are not discussed here. Indeed, the amount sold was greater, but what if costs increased significantly, say by 20%? Then the profits go down...

Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of [#permalink]
24 Jan 2012, 20:35

at first i thought it was D, but looking a it again we can see that the % increase in population is lower than the % increase in the consumption of poultry so we should see an increase in poultry consumption per capita. Also, the stimulus only talks about percentages never actual numbers so our answer should reflect only based on percentages not actual figures. _________________

Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of [#permalink]
28 Jan 2012, 22:08

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. Though percentage increase in Eastland's population (6%) is higher than percentage increase in fish consumption (4.5%), it is possible that some of existing population have reduced consumption of fish despite higher/same consumption of fish from new entrants in Eastland. Incorrect

B) In 2005, the residents of Eastland consumed twice as much poultry as fish.nothing in the stimulus state about relative amount of fish and poultry consumption. It states about percent increase in consumption which does not translate directly into amount. Incorrect

C) The per capita consumption of poultry in Eastland was higher in 2005 than it was in 2000. Suppose in year 2000, consumption of poultary was X while population was Y, thus percapita consumption was Y/X. Now in 2005 , Poultry consumption increased by 9 percent, thus amount poultry consumption was 1.09 X. Similarly, population increased by 6%, therefore new population is 1.06 Y. Combining these two data, in 2005, per capita consumption is 1.09X/1.06 Y > X/Y (IN 2000). IMO Correct answer

D) Between 2000 and 2005, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents.nothing in the stimulus states this fact. Incorrect

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.out of scope. stimulus doesn't states profit anywhere.Incorect

Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of [#permalink]
05 Nov 2013, 09:47

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

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.

gmatclubot

Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of
[#permalink]
05 Nov 2013, 09:47