|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 May 2008
Posts: 74
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[4] , given: 0
|
In Patton City, days are categorized as having heavy [#permalink]
 14 Jun 2008, 12:55
4
This post received
KUDOS
Question Stats:
21% (03:01) correct
78% (01:55) wrong based on 9 sessions
In Patton City, days are categorized as having heavy rainfall (more than two inches), moderate rainfall (more than one inch, but no more than two inches), light rainfall (at least a trace, but no more than one inch), or no rainfall. In 1990, there were fewer days with light rainfall than in 1910 and fewer with moderate rainfall, yet total rainfall for the year was 20 percent higher in 1990 than in 1910. If the statements above are true, then it is also possible that in Patton City (A) the number of days with heavy rainfall was lower in 1990 than in 1910 (B) the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was the same in 1990 as in 1910 (C) the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was higher in 1990 than in 1910 (D) the total number of inches of rain that fell on days with moderate rainfall in 1990 was more than twice what it had been in 1910 (E) the average amount of rainfall per month was lower in 1990 than in 1910 really tuff one 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 186
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[3] , given: 0
|
3
This post received
KUDOS
I think A is a possible answer as it says:
"the number of days with heavy rainfall was lower in 1990 than in 1910" however the amount of rain in 1990 can be more on these days than in 1910. Since heavy rainfall is defined as anything greater than 2 inches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 14 Oct 2007
Posts: 760
Location: Oxford
Schools: Oxford'10
Followers: 11
Kudos [?]:
148
[3] , given: 8
|
3
This post received
KUDOS
quantum wrote: In Patton City, days are categorized as having heavy rainfall (more than two inches), moderate rainfall (more than one inch, but no more than two inches), light rainfall (at least a trace, but no more than one inch), or no rainfall. In 1990, there were fewer days with light rainfall than in 1910 and fewer with moderate rainfall, yet total rainfall for the year was 20 percent higher in 1990 than in 1910. If the statements above are true, then it is also possible that in Patton City A. the number of days with heavy rainfall was lower in 1990 than in 1910 definitely possible. Consider in 1990 one day about 1000000000 inches fell. (just kidding, but u get the point)B. the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was the same in 1990 as in 1910 can't be true because we know moderate and light says were fewer in 1990 than in 1910C. the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was higher in 1990 than in 1910 same problem as in BD. the total number of inches of rain that fell on days with moderate rainfall in 1990 was more than twice what it had been in 1910 not mathematically possible. We can only get twice the amount of rainfall if the number of moderate days were the same and all the moderate days in 1990 have 2 inches of rain and all the moderate rain days have 1 inch of rain in 1910E. the average amount of rainfall per month was lower in 1990 than in 1910 not possible (unless there were more months in 1990  )since we are told total in 1990 was hight really tuff one
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: Waiting to hear from University of Texas at Austin
Joined: 24 May 2010
Posts: 77
Location: Changchun, China
Schools: University of Texas at Austin, Michigan State
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
18
[3] , given: 4
|
3
This post received
KUDOS
First I chose D, then after reviewing I see how A is the correct answer.
From the first statement we know
1990 has
fewer light rainfall days
fewer moderate rainfall days
20% more total rainfall
I think the question's design is for you to search for an explanation for the difference. We all know the questions:
"Which one of the following would best explain the seeming contradiction" or some wording similar......So this is the way we approach this question, that leads us to find D as a possible explanation.
But they questions is which could possibly be true.
You could read choice A as follows:
It is possible that in Patton City the number of days with heavy rainfall was lower in 1990 than in 1910.
Yes it is possible, why not. For example....
In 1990 we could have 10 days with heavy rainfall, and in 1910 we could have 11 days with heavy rainfall.
This example reminds us that when we see which could be true.....we should keep a very open mind.
I tried out some sample data for D.
1910 --> 100 moderate days x 1.0000000000000000000000000000000001 inches each day = c. 100 inches on moderate days
1990 --> 99 moderate days x 2 inches each day = 198 inches
198 inches is not greater than double 100 inches
|
|
|
|
|
|
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 305
Followers: 196
Kudos [?]:
221
[3] , given: 2
|
Re: In Patton City, days are categorized as having heavy [#permalink]
14 Sep 2012, 17:18
3
This post received
KUDOS
Fun question Here is why (A) the number of days with heavy rainfall was lower in 1990 than in 1910 is the answer: On first glance this answer seems the opposite of what we are going for. Surely, Patton City had more days with heavy rain in 1990 than in 1910, otherwise how could one possibly account for the 20% increase in rain from 1910 to 1990. But here is the thing: even if Patton City had fewer days with 2+ inches of rain in 1990 than in 1910, if those days were marked by heavily deluges, then 1990 would have more inches of rain than 1910. Let me illustrate: Let's say that in 1990 Patton City had five days with 2+ inches of rain (Day 1: 4 inches, Day 2: 5 inches, Day 3: 6 inches, Day 4: 5 inches, Day 5: 3 inches). In 1910 Patton City had six rainy days with 2+ inches or rain (Day 1 : 2.5 inches, Day 2: 2.3 inches, Day 3, 2.4 inches...etc.). You can see that, despite fewer 2+ inches days, 1990 has far more inches of rainfall from 2+ inches days than 1910 does.
_________________
Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 12
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
3
[2] , given: 0
|
2
This post received
KUDOS
I will go with A.
(A) the number of days with heavy rainfall was lower in 1990 than in 1910
>>>> The author says lower light and moderate rainfall, YET only 20% more rainfall in 1990. This means there was some other factor that led to lower total rainfall. Above argument solves this !
(B) the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was the same in 1990 as in 1910
>>> There is no such rainfall listed in the question. So rejected.
(C) the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was higher in 1990 than in 1910
>>> There is no such rainfall listed.
(D) the total number of inches of rain that fell on days with moderate rainfall in 1990 was more than twice what it had been in 1910
>>> If 1910 received 1.5inch of rainfall, then 1990 would have received 3inch rainfall. But 2+ inch means heavy rainfall. So this is incorrect too.
(E) the average amount of rainfall per month was lower in 1990 than in 1910
>> This will mean that 1990 had less rainfall than 1910.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Posts: 8
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[2] , given: 0
|
2
This post received
KUDOS
Thats how I figured out A -
Firstly, why it can not be C,D
C - the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was higher in 1990 than in 1910. This contradicts with the stem that in 1990 we have had fewer days of moderate and light rainfall. So ruled out..
D- the total number of inches of rain that fell on days with moderate rainfall in 1990 was more than twice what it had been in 1910. Lets assume in 1910 we have had three days of moderate rainfall and in 1990 the best scenario we could have two. Assume, worst case scenario we received 1 Unit of rainfall in all days in 1900 thus total 3 units and in 1990 we received 2 units (the max we could recieve for moderate) each day. Thus, it comes to total of 4 Units. But , 4<3*2. This contradicts the statement and this is the most favourable case that we could assume for 1990.
Why its A:
A) the number of days with heavy rainfall was lower in 1990 than in 1910
The number can be lower (assume just a difference of one day) , but the intensityof rainfall received 1990 could be substantially greater than in 1990 to offset this difference.
Hope it helps..
Thanks,
Aakash
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 May 2008
Posts: 102
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[1] , given: 0
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
i don't see any option as logically correct over here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 62
Location: Houston TX
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[1] , given: 0
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
I think D explains why total rainfall in 1990 was higher than that in 1910. So D is the correct ans.
_________________
haveaniceday
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 747
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
65
[1] , given: 0
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
D for me. quantum wrote: In Patton City, days are categorized as having heavy rainfall (more than two inches), moderate rainfall (more than one inch, but no more than two inches), light rainfall (at least a trace, but no more than one inch), or no rainfall. In 1990, there were fewer days with light rainfall than in 1910 and fewer with moderate rainfall, yet total rainfall for the year was 20 percent higher in 1990 than in 1910. If the statements above are true, then it is also possible that in Patton City A. the number of days with heavy rainfall was lower in 1990 than in 1910. doesn't helpB. the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was the same in 1990 as in 1910 Argument only mentions 4 categories of rainfall;some rainfall is not defined. some rainfall can be no rainfall too.C. the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was higher in 1990 than in 1910 Argument only mentions 4 categories of rainfall;some rainfall is not defined. some rainfall can be no rainfall too.D. the total number of inches of rain that fell on days with moderate rainfall in 1990 was more than twice what it had been in 1910 This says inches of rainfall was higher; helpsE. the average amount of rainfall per month was lower in 1990 than in 1910 doesn't helpreally tuff one |
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 26 May 2010
Posts: 15
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
2
[1] , given: 0
|
1
This post received
KUDOS
buffdaddy wrote: quantum wrote: In Patton City, days are categorized as having heavy rainfall (more than two inches), moderate rainfall (more than one inch, but no more than two inches), light rainfall (at least a trace, but no more than one inch), or no rainfall. In 1990, there were fewer days with light rainfall than in 1910 and fewer with moderate rainfall, yet total rainfall for the year was 20 percent higher in 1990 than in 1910. If the statements above are true, then it is also possible that in Patton City A. the number of days with heavy rainfall was lower in 1990 than in 1910 definitely possible. Consider in 1990 one day about 1000000000 inches fell. (just kidding, but u get the point)B. the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was the same in 1990 as in 1910 can't be true because we know moderate and light says were fewer in 1990 than in 1910C. the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was higher in 1990 than in 1910 same problem as in BD. the total number of inches of rain that fell on days with moderate rainfall in 1990 was more than twice what it had been in 1910 not mathematically possible. We can only get twice the amount of rainfall if [color=#8000FF]the number of moderate days were the same and all the moderate days in 1990 have 2 inches of rain and all the moderate rain days have 1 inch of rain in 1910[/color] Nowhere in the question it is mentioned that no of moderate days were the same.??? Please correct me if I am wrong E. the average amount of rainfall per month was lower in 1990 than in 1910 not possible (unless there were more months in 1990 )since we are told total in 1990 was hight really tuff one
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 715
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
69
[0], given: 0
|
C by POE A. the number of days with heavy rainfall was lower in 1990 than in 1910 -> cannot say.. B. the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was the same in 1990 as in 1910 -> cannot say... C. the number of days with some rainfall, but no more than two inches, was higher in 1990 than in 1910 -> sounds good D. the total number of inches of rain that fell on days with moderate rainfall in 1990 was more than twice what it had been in 1910 -> may or may not be E. the average amount of rainfall per month was lower in 1990 than in 1910 -> cannot be
_________________
Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Posts: 51
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
9
[0], given: 0
|
how is 'c' possible
The stem says there are fewer days of light and moderate rain in 1990
option C directly contradicts what is written in the stem cos it essentially says that 1990 got more number of light and moderate rain days , which is false
IMO the best choice is D ....
lets say 1990 got fewer no of days for moderate + light rain but on days when it got it , the rains were closest to 2 inches
whereas in 1910 u got more number of such days , but its possible each day u got it closer to the lower end of the slab which is around one
So only D sounds possible to me
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 11
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
D.
The question is "COULD" be possible.
As mentioned above, C cannot be possible because its contradicting the evidence.
In short: The evidence leaves out heavy rain days from 1990.
This is possible:
Heavy rain fell on many of the moderate rain days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 1634
Location: Southern California
Schools: Chicago (dinged), Tuck (November), Columbia (RD)
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
164
[0], given: 0
|
D here
_________________
Check out the new Career Forum
http://gmatclub.com/forum/133
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 May 2008
Posts: 74
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
OA is A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 715
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
69
[0], given: 0
|
yeah C is clearly contradicting.. cannot be the answer.. 
_________________
Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 244
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
D for me...we need to account for the increase in 1990...I dont see how A can account for the increase by 20% given the conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Affiliations: ACA, CPA
Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Posts: 448
Location: Vagabond
Schools: BC
WE 1: Big4, Audit
WE 2: Banking
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
23
[0], given: 41
|
Wow..real sneaky!! Missed it completely.
_________________
If you have made mistakes, there is always another chance for you. You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Posts: 96
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
15
[0], given: 7
|
I narrowed down to A and D. Both seem correct. Please explain why D is not OA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar topics |
Author |
Replies |
Last post |
|
Similar
Topics:
|
 |
|
|
In Patton City, days are categorized as having heavy
|
jzchina |
11 |
13 May 2006, 21:22 |
|
|
|
|
In Patton City, days are categorized as having heavy
|
KC |
16 |
16 Oct 2006, 21:40 |
 |
3
|
|
In Patton City, days are categorized as having heavy
|
seofah |
9 |
12 Nov 2008, 11:34 |
|
|
1
|
|
In Patton City, days are categorized as having heavy
|
vivektripathi |
13 |
14 Dec 2008, 05:11 |
|
|
1
|
|
In Patton City, days are categorized as having heavy
|
arjun206 |
1 |
18 Dec 2012, 02:52 |
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
