bhandariavi wrote:
Fluke!
I think you assumed 57% of total as 57% of total as 57% of 900 & 57% absentee ballots. However i think it is
57%(900+x) = b + 387
so we can have many values of X and b that still satisfies the equation.
So statement 2 is not sufficient.
I think we need statement 1 to verify that 57% was alone for 900 as well. As statement 1 states "Jones received 43% of the votes cast before absentee ballots were counted" . Therefore Smith received 57% before absentee ballots were counted.
Then we can move into your calculation, which is correct.
But Answer should be C.
Correct me if I am wrong.
You wrote the same equation I did.
57%(900+x) = b + 387
i.e.
57%(900)+(57%)x=b+387
It is given that b=(57%)*900= 513
It means that out of 900 non-absentee ballots, Smith received 513 votes(this info is not required to answer the question though)
After the absentee ballot were counted, Smith received 57% as well. Means, out of the total count of absentee ballots, Smith's votes were 57%.
If 'x' absentee ballots were counted, Smith's votes were 57% of x and it is given that it equated to 387
i.e.
57% of x=387
x= 678.something(i see that it is a decimal, which is wrong)
Well!!! if we ignore that, we will get x=678
And percentage change in votes = (678/900)*100 = 77.something%
I think we need statement 1 to verify that 57% was alone for 900 as well. As statement 1 states "Jones received 43% of the votes cast before absentee ballots were counted"We know this info from 2 itself; the question states "In an election with only
two candidates". However, I don't think that's even required.
We knew 900 were non-absentee ballots and we just needed x(count of absentee ballots) to know the % change in votes, which can be derived only from 0.57x=387
The only discrepancy I find the question is that decimal value for "x".
Maybe I am missing something. Please correct me if I have gone wrong anywhere.
_________________