From 1980 to 1989, total consumption of fish in the country of Jurania

A.During the 1980’s in Jurania, profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did profits of wholesale distributors of fish.
Profits have not been discussed .Need not be true.
B.For people who immigrated to Jurania during the 1980’s, fish was less likely to be a major part of their diet than was poultry.
It might look an attractive trap answer . But this need not necessarily be true as the percentage increase needn't be attributed
to the entire migrant population . There is also a possibility that a major part of the percentage increase was due to more consumption by the natives.
C.In 1989 Juranians consumed twice as much poultry as fish.
Only percentage change is given . Deriving actual numbers from percentage is a strech.
D.For a significant proportion of Jurania’s population, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of their diet during the 1980’s.
Needn't be true . The percentage increase might be attributed to a fraction of a population.
E.Per capita consumption of fish in Jurania was lower in 1989 than in 1980.
Since , population increased by 6%
and fish consumption by 4.5 %
This has to be true
Per captia consumption of fish = Total consumption of fish/ Total population

Answer E

I could eliminate all but B and E. picked E in the end.
A - profits = revenue - costs. we know revenue increased, but we do not know anything about the costs. so out.
B - most of the increase of population is from immigration. these people consumed more poultry. this might be true, or might not. what if during 1980 to 1989 poultry became very popular as a food? out.
C - we cannot conclude that. the fact that the percent increase of poultry was twice the percent increase of fish does not mean that the poultry was consumed twice as much as fish.
suppose 100 fish and 100 poultry was consumed. at the end of 1989 = 104.5 fish and 109 poultry. as we can see, this one doesn't even make sense.
D - no new relevant information.
E - yes, absolutely. for ex. consumption of fish in 1980 was 1 fish/person. so we had 100 fish for 100 people. in 1989 = we had 106 people, and only 104.5 fish consumed. thus, the consumption of fish per capita decreased.

A. During the 1980’s in Jurania, profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did profits of wholesale distributors of fish.

We don't know anything about price changes to infer about profits

B. For people who immigrated to Jurania during the 1980’s, fish was less likely to be a major part of their diet than was poultry.

It is possible that all migrants preferred fish or poultry, passage doesn't restrict on any of this possibilities.

C. In 1989 Juranians consumed twice as much poultry as fish.

Can not infer anything about amounts because have only proportions

D. For a significant proportion of Jurania’s population, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of their diet during the 1980’s.

It is possible that both poultry and fish have only 1% of Juranians diet, passage does not restrict on that. -> Can't infer that

E. Per capita consumption of fish in Jurania was lower in 1989 than in 1980.

Let Q be Consuption of fish and P be Juranian population

Q80/P80; Q89/P89=1.045*Q80/1.09*Q80, which is lower than Q80/P80 => E is correct.

"From 1980 to 1989, total consumption of fish in the country of Jurania increased by 4.5 percent, and total consumption of poultry products there increased by 9.0 percent. During the same period, the population of Jurania increased by 6 percent, in part due to immigration to Jurania from other countries in the region.

If the statements above are true, which of the following must also be true on the basis of them?

A. During the 1980’s in Jurania, profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did profits of wholesale distributors of fish.
B. For people who immigrated to Jurania during the 1980’s, fish was less likely to be a major part of their diet than was poultry.
C. In 1989 Juranians consumed twice as much poultry as fish.
D. For a significant proportion of Jurania’s population, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of their diet during the 1980’s.
E. Per capita consumption of fish in Jurania was lower in 1989 than in 1980."

Data:
- Fish Cons. +4.5 %
- Poul. Cons +9.0 %
- Total Pop. 6%, partly due to imigration

Meaning:
If the the consumption grew by 4.5% and the total population grew by 6% - this means less % people are consuming the fish.

Example: lets say we have 10 people, and 3 people consume fish.
if in 1 year we have 40 people and 4 people are consuming fish, the % fish consumers has decline.

The correct answer E, actualy talk about the (% of people) who consume fish, since it means (# of fish consumers)/(# of people), and since the % change of fish consumers is smaller than the % change of the # of people - we are actualy make the nominator smaller and the denominator bigger- hence E is correct.

F = consumption of fish
P = population of Jurania

\(\frac{F_{89} - F_{80}}{F_{80}}=0.045\)

\(F_{89} = 1.045*F_{80}\)

\(\frac{P_{89} - P_{80}}{P_{80}}=0.06\)

\(P_{89} = 1.06*P_{80}\)

consumption of fish per capita

\(= \frac{F_{89}}{P_{89}}\)

\(= \frac{1.045*F_{80}}{1.06*P_{80}}\)

\(= 0.9587*\frac{F_{80}}{P_{80}}\)

Question Type: Inference

Argument: 1980 to 1989 --> Fish consumption increased by 4.5%
Consumption of poultry products increased by 9%
Population of Jurania increased by 6%

(A) During the 1980s in Jurania, profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did profits of wholesale distributors of fish. - Out of scope. Profits are not discussed in the argument.

(B) For people who immigrated to Jurania during the 1980s, fish was less likely to be a major part of their diet than was poultry. - We cannot come to this conclusion as there is a possibility that the immigrants majorly consumed fish and the rest of the population consumed poultry products.

(C) In 1989 Juranians consumed twice as much poultry as fish. - Double the percentage doesn't mean double the number.

(D) For a significant proportion of Jurania’s population, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of their diet during the 1980s. - We do not know whether they were a regular part of their diet in 1980s. We know only about the increase in percentage.

(E) Per capita consumption of fish in Jurania was lower in 1989 than in 1980. - Correct.

Answer: E

We don't know about profits and wholesale distribution.

There is no comparison made about the dietary habits.

No such inference can be drawn.

Regular diet is not discussed.

If population has has certainly impacted because population has increased from 1980 to 1989. Correct

POE is worth using on GMAT, and may be most underrated technique still

(A) During the 1980s in Jurania, profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did profits of wholesale distributors of fish.
We don't know anything about actual value of profits.

(B) For people who immigrated to Jurania during the 1980s, fish was less likely to be a major part of their diet than was poultry.
Could be true or not, introduces new information

(C) In 1989 Juranians consumed twice as much poultry as fish.
We don't know anything about actual amounts of fish/poultry.

(D) For a significant proportion of Jurania’s population, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of their diet during the 1980s.
Could be true or not, maybe it's a food only for the highest income bracket.

(E) Per capita consumption of fish in Jurania was lower in 1989 than in 1980.
This MUST be true because the increase in people was 6% while the increase in fish was only 4.5%

Notice that the wrong ACs either talk about actual values or mentioned unknown information. The stem only gives us a proportion. Anything with values only is wrong, and the other answers related to proportions talk about it in terms of factors not mentioned in the stem.

I guess tgere is no where defined that both fish and poultry consumption are same intially so this can be subjective if we go from calculation perspective

Posted from my mobile device

E. Per capita consumption of fish in Jurania was lower in 1989 than in 1980.

Per capita consumption = Total Consumption/No of people.
Take the population to be 100
Fish - 100
and
Poultry consumption also as 100

So after Increase
Population in 1989 - 106
Fish- 104.5
and
poultry 109

So per capita for fish consumption in 1980 was 100/100 = 1
in
1989 it becomes 104.5/106 <1

E says, since the rate of increase of the denominator is higher than the rate of increase of the numerator, we will have a resulting decrease in per-capita consumption.

You can solve this question easily by considering this as a quant question
.

Thanks

From 1980 to 1989, total consumption of fish in the country of Jurania increased by 4.5 percent, and total consumption of poultry products there increased by 9.0 percent. – From 1980 to 1989, total fish consumption increased by 4.5% and total poultry consumption increased by 9%.
(“total consumption” –> weight of the meat consumed. So, maybe people have started consuming more fish and poultry, or maybe the population has increased, leading to this increase in consumption.)

During the same period, the population of Jurania increased by 6 percent, in part due to immigration to Jurania from other countries in the region.– Ok, So there was a population increase. This increase was partly due to immigration. (6% is in the middle of 4.5% and 9%. Had eating trends remained the same for the entire population, food consumption should have increased by 6%. Maybe immigrants consume more poultry and less fish on average than native Juranians.)





If the statements above are true, which of the following must also be true on the basis of them?

We’re looking for an inference here. From the passage, I can surmise that consumption of fish went down with respect to the increase in population, and consumption of poultry went up with respect to the increase in population.

I mentioned above that maybe the immigrants consume more poultry and less fish on average than native Juranians. While that could be true, it is not something that I can infer from the given information. I can’t be sure about what would have caused these changes.

Let’s take a look at the answer choices.





A. During the 1980s in Jurania, profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did profits of wholesale distributors of fish.
Incorrect. We are only given figures for the percentage increases in consumption. The passage does not discuss anything about revenues, costs or profits. Can’t infer this one.

B. For people who immigrated to Jurania during the 1980s, fish was less likely to be a major part of their diet than was poultry.
Incorrect. A deceptively attractive answer choice.

I have talked about this above as well. it is certainly possible that the immigrants consumed more poultry than fish, and that eating habit was the reason for a less than 6% increase in total fish consumption and a more than 6% increase in total poultry consumption.

Remember though, our objective here is to find an answer choice that must be true on the basis of the above passage.

So, can we be certain that for the immigrants, fish was less likely to be a major part of their diet than was poultry? No.

The passage doesn’t state that the population increase was solely due to immigration. Immigration was just partly responsible. May be bulk of the population increase was domestic.
Even if the population increase was solely because of immigration, we don’t know what caused the respective increases in fish and poultry consumption. It is possible that there was an overall trend in the country of shifting towards higher poultry and lower fish consumption.

Note: Some test takers get attracted to this answer choice thinking that “This could justify why the consumption of fish and poultry increased the way they did. It fits.” Our objective is not to find something that could fit, though. It is to find an answer choice we can infer. We cannot infer (B).

C. In 1989 Juranians consumed twice as much poultry as fish.
Incorrect. Sure, 9 is twice 4.5. But those figures just represent the percentage increases in consumption.

We do not have any information about total consumption in absolute terms. e.g. fish consumption could have gone up from 1000 tonnes to 1045 tonnes (a 4.5% increase), and poultry consumption could have gone up from 200 tonnes to 218 tonnes (a 9% increase). So, poultry consumption need not even be greater than fish consumption in 1989, let alone be twice as much.

D. For a significant proportion of Jurania’s population, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of their diet during the 1980s.
Incorrect. Were fish and poultry products a “regular part” of the diet?
No idea.
All we know is that their consumptions increased by 4.5% and 9%. What were the bases for those increases? We have no clue.

True story: I consume significantly more apple cider vinegar now than I did ten years ago.
Does that mean that ACV is a regular part of my diet?
I know for a fact that it is not 🙂

Consumption going up doesn’t mean that the food item is a regular part of the diet. Cannot infer this answer choice.

E. Per capita consumption of fish in Jurania was lower in 1989 than in 1980.
Correct. We know from the passage that fish consumption has increased. This option talks about a decrease related to fish consumption. These two pieces might seem contradictory to each other. They actually are not. The 4.5% increase in the passage deals with overall increase in fish consumption. This answer choice talks about a decrease in per capita fish consumption.

Let’s first understand what ‘per capita consumption of fish’ means.

Per capita consumption of fish = Total fish consumption by weight / Total population

The passage tells us that the numerator of the fraction has increased. This answer choice is talking about the overall fraction decreasing. Both these pieces of information could be true simultaneously. At least there is no contradiction here.

Now let’s see why we can infer it.

From 1980 to 1989, fish consumption increased by 4.5%, and the population increased by 6%. Fish consumption increased by a lower percentage than the population, therefore the per capita consumption of fish (the overall fraction) would have certainly reduced.

We can understand this algebraically too:

In 1980
Say, the total fish consumption was: F kg
Say, the total population of Jurania was: P

==> Per capita consumption of fish in 1980 = F/P kg per person

In 1989
Fish consumption increased to: F*1.045 kg
Population increased to: P*1.06
==> Per capita consumption: F*1.045/P*1.06 kg per person
= (F/P) * (1.045/1.06)

1.045 < 1.06
==> 1.045/1.06 < 1
==> F/P * 1.045/1.06 < F/P

Thus, yes, the per capita consumption of fish was certainly lower in 1989 than in 1980.

in 1980 ratio was f/p
in 1989 ratio was 1.045f/1.06p. Ratio reduces