Between 1984 and 1989, occupancy rates in college

Question

Between 1984 and 1989, occupancy rates in college dormitories averaged 91 percent of capacity, while admission rates remained constant at an average of 200 students per 1,000 rooms per year. Between 1989 and 1994, however, occupancy rates rose to an average of 98 percent of capacity, while student admission rates declined to 150 per 1,000 rooms per year.

If the information above is true, it would most clearly support which of the following statements? 
(A) The average length of time that students remained in campus housing increased between 1989 and 1994. 
(B) The proportion of students living in campus housing was greater in 1994 than in 1989. 
(C) Student admission rates tend to decline whenever campus-housing occupancy rates rise. 
(D) Campus dormitories built prior to 1989 generally had fewer rooms than did campus dormitories built after 1989. 
(E) The more rooms campus housing has, the higher its occupancy rate is likely to be.

PrashantPonde · Accepted Answer

The stimulus offers facts about the occupancy rates in college dormitories for two time periods – 1984-1989 and 1989-1994. The more recent time period had an increase in occupancy rates at the same time fewer students were admitted. Here, a strong connection between the two statements allows us to predict that the increase in occupancy rates during 1989-1994 must be caused by more current students remaining in the dormitories. The increase in occupancy rates cannot be caused by more new students because there were fewer students admitted.

Choice (A) states that the average length of time that students remained in campus housing increased between 1989 and 1994. This matches with above explanation and is the correct answer.

Choice (B) says that the proportion of students living in campus housing was greater in 1994 than in 1989. This is an irrelevant comparison; we are concerned with the percentage of rooms that are occupied, not the percentage of students who live in dormitories.

Choice (C) mentions that student admission rates tend to decline whenever campus-housing occupancy rates rise. This is outside of the scope; we can’t infer anything about how admission and occupancy rates typically behave from this specific example.

Choice (D) indicates that campus dormitories built prior to 1989 generally had fewer rooms than did campus dormitories built after 1989. This makes an irrelevant comparison – the number of rooms is not an issue, as the stimulus gives us the information as a “"per 1,000”" rate.

Choice (E) suggests that the more rooms campus housing has, the higher its occupancy rate is likely to be. This doesn't follow from the stimulus – again, the rate of occupancy makes the actual number of rooms irrelevant.

krackgmat · Answer

I have chosen B. I would appreciate if you can provide explanation.

vishu1414 · Answer

Although I chose correct answer ,but have a tough time in interpreting choice -A ,especially occupancy rate & admission rate

Please someone explain a bit more on OA

Thanks
Bijay

rohantiwari · Answer

addmission rate - number of students admitted to the dormitory/1000 rooms
occupancy rate is the percentage of rooms that remain occupied in a particular time period.
even though number of students admitted decreased, their stay at the dormitory increased hence the occupancy rate increased.
Answer - A

Belerofonte · Answer

I do not agree: the number of admitted students does not necessarely decrease, only the rate does. Very confusing question...

https://gmatclub.com/static/posted_from.png     Posted from    GMAT ToolKit

ramannanda9 · Answer

A ,Correct, the number of new students decrease, so the average stay of the other students must increase to have a higher occupancy rate. 
 B, Incorrect as we are given the average 98 percent, we cannot be sure that the number of students were more in 1994 or 1989. We cannot conclude this from the information provided. 
Rest all are way off.

SVaidyaraman · Answer

Hi,

Assume:

In 1989: No.of rooms =1000, New students = 200, Rooms occupied= 910, Old students = 710
In 1994: No.of rooms = 2000, New students = 300, Rooms occupied= 1960 Old students = 1660

The greater proportion of old students to new students in 1994 would result in increased average stay period of the students in 1994.

gwu · Answer

I missed the meaning of occupancy rate - hence messed up my answer choice

rango · Answer

Good one ; Passage- said That OR-91 when AR-Constant; OR-98 when AR- Decresed. (A) The average length of time that students remained in campus housing increased between 1989 and 1994. - Correctly defies the ; if the average time the student spending in campus increases then the rooms are likely to occupied at single point of tie hence the occupancy rate will go up, irrespective of the Admission rate. (B) The proportion of students living in campus housing was greater in 1994 than in 1989.- Now here the word proportion of students is used which mean the ratio of no. of students; i guess OR - defined by no. of rooms occupied /total no. of rooms, not by total no. of students. So this is also not true. (C) Student admission rates tend to decline whenever campus-housing occupancy rates rise. - So this fact already mentioned in the passage, need not to repeat, this is a fact. (D) Campus dormitories built prior to 1989 generally had fewer rooms than did campus dormitories built after 1989- May be the case but increased rooms does not correlate with increased occupancy and decreased AR. (E) The more rooms campus housing has, the higher its occupancy rate is likely to be. - passage discusses the relation v\between OR and AR not with no. of rooms. :banana

Temurkhon · Answer

Prephrasing: If admission rate goes down but occupancy goes up the reason can be that admmitted students study more time

A

Harley1980 · Answer

If we use the same logic for variant B:
If admission rate goes down but occupancy goes up the reason can be that admmitted students start living in the campus and not outside campus.

---- Another explanation:
In 1989: No.of rooms =1000, New students = 200, Rooms occupied= 910, Old students = 710
In 1994: No.of rooms = 2000, New students = 300, Rooms occupied= 1960 Old students = 1660

The greater proportion of old students to new students in 1994 would result in increased average stay period of the students in 1994.

The same logic for B

In 1989: No.of rooms =1000, New students = 200, Rooms occupied= 910, students live not in campus: 90 
In 1994: No.of rooms = 2000, New students = 300, Rooms occupied= 1960, students live not in campus: 40
The greater proportion of students living in campus to students living not in campus in 1994 would result in increased number of students live in campus

====

If we can infer that student start living in campus more time why we can't infer that they stop living outside the campus and as a result occupancy rate increase?

Am I miss something obvious?

akkuz · Answer

I dropped B because the stimulus compares 84-89 with 89-94 (periods) while the answer option compares 89 with 94 (specific years).

sleepynut · Answer

Hi experts,
Can you please elaborate more on option A and B?

Thanks

GMATNinja · Answer

This is basically a "resolve the paradox" question. We're trying to figure out how it's possible that the following are both true:

occupancy rates are up
BUT student admission rates are down, at least relative to the number of available rooms

As others have explained here, (A) makes sense: if students spend more time, on average, living in campus housing, then that would explain why occupancy rates are up, even if admissions rates are down.

But what's the problem with (B)? Well, it leaves a subtle loophole: "proportion of students" isn't necessarily the same thing as "proportion of  admitted  students." For example, you could have a greater proportion of students living in campus housing, but if tons had dropped out -- or had decided not to attend after being admitted -- then it still wouldn't resolve the paradox. (B) simply doesn't cleanly connect admitted students to actual occupancy in student housing.

Of course, usual disclaimers apply here about non-official questions, so don't lose much sleep over this one, either.

(Note: this has been edited from the original version since I made a dumb typo.)

anje29 · Answer

Hi,
In line 
(A) makes sense: if students spend more time, on average, living in campus housing, then  that would explain why occupancy rates are down,  even if admissions rates are not.

Did you mean occupancy rates are going up?

sandesh87 · Answer

I think A is wrong. What if the number of rooms increased

GMATNinja · Answer

Thank you for catching my error, Anje29! Yes, I meant to say that occupancy rates are down. Edited my post so that it doesn't confuse anybody else.

lupitavf · Answer

I guess the proportion of people who live in dorms can increase without necessarily increasing the number of occupied dorms.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Between 1984 and 1989, occupancy rates in college

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Between 1984 and 1989, occupancy rates in college

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards