Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 21 Oct 2014, 10:35

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

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.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Leona: If the average consumption of eggs in the United

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 57
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Leona: If the average consumption of eggs in the United [#permalink] New post 31 Mar 2005, 13:16
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
21. Leona: If the average consumption of eggs in the United States were cut in half, an estimated 5,000 lives might be saved each year.
Thomas: How can that be? That would mean that if people adopt this single change in diet for ten years, the population ten years from now will be greater by 50,000 people than it otherwise would have been.

Which one of the following is a statement that Leona could offer Thomas to clarify her own claim and to address the point he has made?
(A) It is possible for the population to grow by 5,000 people for every year if the base year chosen for purposes of comparison is one with unusually low population growth.
(B) It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do so–even if they died for some other reason.
(C) If egg consumption were reduced by more than half, the estimated number of lives saved each year could be even more than 5,000.
(D) The actual rate of population growth depends not only on the birth rate, but also on changes in life expectancy.
(E) For the average consumption of eggs to be cut by half, many individual consumers would have to cut their own consumption by much more than half.

Please explain your answer.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1447
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 31 Mar 2005, 13:37
"B" is best.....we need to find an answer which can combine both these people's arguments i.e. we can say that ppl didn't die off becose of high egg consumption but they still cud die of other causes.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 30 Sep 2004
Posts: 1493
Location: Germany
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 31 Mar 2005, 13:53
agree with B) it adresses his point => "how can that be?" it can be when the people, who changed their diet, did not die. so her claim would only be possible when none of these died but that would be unrealistic because they could die because of some other reason. so her claim is more abstract and his response is more practical. B) solves this kind of discrepancy.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 908
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 31 Mar 2005, 16:25
B it is . Only B and D both address Leone and Thomas' claim but B is better
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 31 Mar 2005, 17:06
for a change I will go with (D).

(B) It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do so–even if they died for some other reason.

According to this these people would have died anyway. Changing the diet would not have any effect on these people. If this happens the population might not increase in that case.
I believe Leona cannot use this to defend her claim. But she can use it to show that Thomas's claim may not hold good.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5095
Location: Singapore
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 155 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 31 Mar 2005, 18:07
(A) It is possible for the population to grow by 5,000 people for every year if the base year chosen for purposes of comparison is one with unusually low population growth.
- Does not help her one bit. Her conclusion is one meant to apply generally across any population, not only those with low growth.

(B) It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do so–even if they died for some other reason.
- This is the best answer. It is accurate to the point that these 5000 people mentioned did not die due to other causes other than over-consumption of eggs. If this was not the case, then you can't expect an extra 50,000 people because they might die of other things (accidents, dieases, old age etc)

(C) If egg consumption were reduced by more than half, the estimated number of lives saved each year could be even more than 5,000.
- Out of scope.

(D) The actual rate of population growth depends not only on the birth rate, but also on changes in life expectancy.
- Weakens her stand in fact. It says population is dependent not only on birth rate but also on life expectancy. But saving lifes means extending their life expectancy and so Thomas's stand might actually be valid.

(E) For the average consumption of eggs to be cut by half, many individual consumers would have to cut their own consumption by much more than half.
- That's not important and does not allow leona to clarify her claim.

B it is.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 31 Mar 2005, 18:53
(B) It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do so–even if they died for some other reason.


Could anyone explain what these people did not do ? (did not do so)
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1798
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 31 Mar 2005, 18:57
I think the answer is definitely (B)

It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do so–even if they died for some other reason.

I think the bold portion says that

these people did not change their diets.

If people are going to die anyway then the diet change will not help and these people cannot be counted towards number of people saved.

If they are not going to die for any reason other than changing diets then these people could be counted as long as they change their diets.
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5095
Location: Singapore
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 155 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 31 Mar 2005, 19:10
anandnk wrote:
(B) It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do so–even if they died for some other reason.


Could anyone explain what these people did not do ? (did not do so)



hmmm.. did not should refer to changing their diets, i guess. You can't use do to refer to death (which is not something you do, but rather something you experience)
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 1226
Location: Taiwan
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 02 Apr 2005, 05:01
ywilfred wrote:
anandnk wrote:
(B) It is accurate to say that 5,000 lives have been saved as long as 5,000 people who would have died in a given year as a result of not changing their diet, did not do so–even if they died for some other reason.


Could anyone explain what these people did not do ? (did not do so)



hmmm.. did not should refer to changing their diets, i guess. You can't use do to refer to death (which is not something you do, but rather something you experience)


Hi, all

I cannot understand what does the sentense "did not do so–even if they died for some other reason" mean?

Could you paraphrase it?

Thanks
  [#permalink] 02 Apr 2005, 05:01
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic The United States consumption walker 5 26 Jan 2008, 11:59
Leona: If the average consumption of eggs in the United dwivedys 6 16 Nov 2006, 10:13
Leona: If the average consumption of eggs in the United shahnandan 3 31 Jan 2006, 01:23
In the United States in 1986, the average rate of violent damit 5 13 Jul 2005, 16:00
2 From 1973 to 1976, total United States consumption of chunjuwu 6 15 Dec 2004, 09:45
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Leona: If the average consumption of eggs in the United

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.