It is currently 20 Feb 2018, 11:07

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Barras, Agna & Cussaia - any increase 5% or more...

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 682
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Barras, Agna & Cussaia - any increase 5% or more... [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Oct 2017, 19:22
SASI KUMAR wrote:
ronr34 wrote:
An additional question that I am inserting here due to the fact that the tables are already here:

and the correct is in a square, mine are in the circle





Can someone give explanation on this I couldn't understand



The question asks whether it is supported by each of the two tables. i.e. The statement should be supported by Table 1 AND Table 2. Even if one of the tables does not support the statement, the answer is No. This is analogous to the Logical AND function.

Questions/Statements in the red box, let’s consider them Stmt1, Stmt2, Stmt3.

Statement is SEPERATELY supported by the passage -
Stmt1 -Yes (Read the last line about Barras)
Stmt2 -Yes (Read the last line about Agna)
Stmt3 -Yes (Read the last line about Cussia)

Statement is SEPERATELY supported by each of the 2 tables -
Stmt1 - No (Becasue no data available)
Stmt2 -No (Becasue no data available)
Stmt3 -No (Becasue no data available)

Clubbing them together for final answer -
Stmt1 -No
Stmt2 -No
Stmt3 -No
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 682
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Barras, Agna & Cussaia - any increase 5% or more... [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Oct 2017, 19:24
Surbhi17 wrote:
Can some one help me with this one ? Its the same set from the above passage mentioned ..



Both tables (in tabs 2 and 3) talk about Barras and meat consumption, but this question asks about pounds—that sends us to tab 3.
Read the key up at top. The table shows average monthly meat consumption (good, that’s what we want!) in pounds for a 4-person family. We want pounds. Do we want a 4-person family?
Nope. The question asks about the total consumption in pounds for the residents of Barras. We’re going to need to do a little calculating here.
In the 1000s, Barras’s average monthly consumption per 4-person family was 160 pounds. Per person, then, consumption was 160 /4 = 40 pounds. Hmm, now what?
We need to know the total number of residents in Barras in the 1000s. Where did they tell us that?
Right! Tab 1 gave some information about population at the end of the paragraph about Barras. The passage says that there were 400 residents, on average, in the AD 1000s.
400 residents multiplied by 40 pounds per resident is a total of 16,000 pounds.
The correct answer is (C).
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Jul 2015
Posts: 9
Schools: INSEAD Jan '17
Re: Barras, Agna & Cussaia - any increase 5% or more... [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Feb 2018, 08:02
arichinna wrote:
Hi,

Please use table 2. The question is demanding us to assume 5% or more of a given food item. From AD 600 to AD 700, the proportion of grains increased from 10% to 15%. Here the overall consumption of a given food should be considered and not the overall food consumption increase.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
Ari



Explanation is fine. I got 2nd and 3rd correct. However I still don't understand 1st one. We are not given data from 500 AD so how we can decide whether consumption of Meat in 600 AD >= or <= 5% of meat consumption in 500 AD?
Re: Barras, Agna & Cussaia - any increase 5% or more...   [#permalink] 19 Feb 2018, 08:02

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 23 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Barras, Agna & Cussaia - any increase 5% or more...

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Moderators: chetan2u, Bunuel



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

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

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®.