GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 21 Oct 2019, 06:18

### 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

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

# In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 196
In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 27 Oct 2018, 04:32
15
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

64% (01:41) correct 36% (01:48) wrong based on 959 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increased by 4.5 percent, and the total consumption of poultry products increased by 9.0 percent. During this time, the population of Eastland increased by 6 percent, in part due to new arrivals from surrounding areas.
Which of the following, if true, can one infer based on the statements above?

A. For new arrivals to Eastland between 2000 and 2005, fish was less likely to be a major part of families’ diet than was poultry.

B. In 2005, the residents of Eastland consumed twice as much poultry as fish.

C. The per capita consumption of poultry in Eastland was higher in 2005 than it was in 2000.

D. Between 2000 and 2005, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents.

E. Between 2000 and 2005, the profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did the profits of wholesale distributors of fish.

Originally posted by crejoc on 15 Aug 2009, 02:10.
Last edited by gmat1393 on 27 Oct 2018, 04:32, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Joined: 30 Dec 2008
Posts: 21
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2009, 04:54
19
A. is incorrect, since we only have info about the total consumption of poultry/fish. What if two families ate something like 2 tons of chicken and 1000 families ate something like 2 pounds of fish every day?

B. the passage does not provide info about the quantities of fish/poultry consumed, it just points out their respective gains.

C. is correct. Look at it mathematically:
population in 2000 = x
population in 2005 = 106% *x

poultry in 2000 = y
poultry in 2005 = 109% *y

per capita poultry consumption in 2000 = y/x
per capita poultry consumption in 2005 = 109%y/106%x = y/x * 109/106 > y/x

D. no info to establish this

E. profits are not discussed here. Indeed, the amount sold was greater, but what if costs increased significantly, say by 20%? Then the profits go down...
##### General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 196
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2009, 23:25
nicely explained dana... kudos..
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 271
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Aug 2009, 22:08
2
seldom see such CRs... test on maths..
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 457
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Aug 2009, 10:12
DanaJ wrote:
A. is incorrect, since we only have info about the total consumption of poultry/fish. What if two families ate something like 2 tons of chicken and 1000 families ate something like 2 pounds of fish every day?

B. the passage does not provide info about the quantities of fish/poultry consumed, it just points out their respective gains.

C. is correct. Look at it mathematically:
population in 2000 = x
population in 2005 = 106% *x

poultry in 2000 = y
poultry in 2005 = 109% *y

per capita poultry consumption in 2000 = y/x
per capita poultry consumption in 2005 = 109%y/106%x = y/x * 109/106 > y/x

D. no info to establish this

E. profits are not discussed here. Indeed, the amount sold was greater, but what if costs increased significantly, say by 20%? Then the profits go down...

nice explanation. thanks +1 for ya.
Manager
Status: D-Day is on February 10th. and I am not stressed
Affiliations: American Management association, American Association of financial accountants
Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 156
Location: Kuwait
Schools: Columbia university
In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Nov 2011, 14:40
1
14
In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increased by 4.5 percent, and the total consumption of poultry products increased by 9.0 percent. During this time, the population of Eastland increased by 6 percent, in part due to new arrivals from surrounding areas.

Which of the following, if true, can one infer based on the statements above?
A)For new arrivals to Eastland between 2000 and 2005, fish was less likely to be a major part of families’ diet than was poultry.
B)In 2005, the residents of Eastland consumed twice as much poultry as fish.
C)The per capita consumption of poultry in Eastland was higher in 2005 than it was in 2000.
D)Between 2000 and 2005, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents.
E)Between 2000 and 2005, the profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did the profits of wholesale distributors of fish.
_________________
Sky is the limit
Senior Manager
Status: Prep started for the n-th time
Joined: 29 Aug 2010
Posts: 404

### Show Tags

25 Nov 2011, 18:01
This is a very good practice question.

According to the stimulus,

Total fish comsumption = 4.5 percent increase
Total consumption of poultry products = + 9.0 % increase
Total Population = 6 % increase.

Since all the values given in the stimulus are percent increases, and we do not know the base value in 2000, we can eliminate B and D. E is irrelevant because profit is not mentioned anywhere. We can eliminate A as it requires us to assume that most of the population increase was due to the new arrivals.

C is the correct answer and can be proven from the information in the stimulus.

Crick
Retired Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 513
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07

### Show Tags

13 Dec 2011, 01:19
1
109% consumption of poultry products/ 106 %population > consumption of poultry products/population = 1

So, choice C is the correct one.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2011
Posts: 117
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.7
WE: Account Management (Consumer Products)
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jan 2012, 21:35
at first i thought it was D, but looking a it again we can see that the % increase in population is lower than the % increase in the consumption of poultry so we should see an increase in poultry consumption per capita.
Also, the stimulus only talks about percentages never actual numbers so our answer should reflect only based on percentages not actual figures.
_________________
DETERMINED TO BREAK 700!!!
Intern
Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Posts: 36
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jan 2012, 23:08
In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increased by 4.5 percent, and the total consumption of poultry products increased by 9.0 percent. During this time, the population of Eastland increased by 6 percent, in part due to new arrivals from surrounding areas.
Which of the following, if true, can one infer based on the statements above?

A) For new arrivals to Eastland between 2000 and 2005, fish was less likely to be a major part of families’ diet than was poultry. Though percentage increase in Eastland's population (6%) is higher than percentage increase in fish consumption (4.5%), it is possible that some of existing population have reduced consumption of fish despite higher/same consumption of fish from new entrants in Eastland. Incorrect

B) In 2005, the residents of Eastland consumed twice as much poultry as fish.nothing in the stimulus state about relative amount of fish and poultry consumption. It states about percent increase in consumption which does not translate directly into amount. Incorrect

C) The per capita consumption of poultry in Eastland was higher in 2005 than it was in 2000. Suppose in year 2000, consumption of poultary was X while population was Y, thus percapita consumption was Y/X. Now in 2005 , Poultry consumption increased by 9 percent, thus amount poultry consumption was 1.09 X. Similarly, population increased by 6%, therefore new population is 1.06 Y. Combining these two data, in 2005, per capita consumption is 1.09X/1.06 Y > X/Y (IN 2000). IMO Correct answer

D) Between 2000 and 2005, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents.nothing in the stimulus states this fact. Incorrect

E) Between 2000 and 2005, the profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did the profits of wholesale distributors of fish.out of scope. stimulus doesn't states profit anywhere.Incorect
Manager
Joined: 22 Feb 2009
Posts: 156
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Aug 2014, 00:08
C
Total consumption of poultry increase 9% > population increase 6%
If you divide two number, total consumption/ population = per capita consumption has to increase since 9% > 6%
_________________
.........................................................................
+1 Kudos please, if you like my post
Intern
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
Posts: 40
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2014, 08:52
Superb explanation DanaJ!

Really helped to crack the inference question.

This is how maths is used in inference CR.
_________________
'The best way to thank or appreciate efforts on this forum is to give Kudos.'
Intern
Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 20
GPA: 3.96
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2015, 23:25
In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increased by 4.5 percent, and the total consumption of poultry products increased by 9.0 percent. During this time, the population of Eastland increased by 6 percent, in part due to new arrivals from surrounding areas.

Which of the following, if true, can one infer based on the statements above?
A)For new arrivals to Eastland between 2000 and 2005, fish was less likely to be a major part of families’ diet than was poultry.
B)In 2005, the residents of Eastland consumed twice as much poultry as fish.
C)The per capita consumption of poultry in Eastland was higher in 2005 than it was in 2000.
D)Between 2000 and 2005, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents.
E)Between 2000 and 2005, the profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did the profits of wholesale distributors of fish.

Prethink inference-The per capita consumption of poultry was greater in 2005 than in 2005-109/106 in 2005 against 100/100 in 2000. only C matches this hence C is correct

other options
A)For new arrivals to Eastland between 2000 and 2005, fish was less likely to be a major part of families’ diet than was poultry-Likeliness/preference is not an issue here.It may be true but not always have to be true.
B)In 2005, the residents of Eastland consumed twice as much poultry as fish-Same as A
C)Between 2000 and 2005, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents-Do not always have to be true same as option A
E)Between 2000 and 2005, the profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did the profits of wholesale distributors of fish-Profits is not the issue here hence out of scope
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2014
Posts: 136
GMAT 1: 610 Q49 V25
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V40
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jun 2015, 23:36
1
A)For new arrivals to Eastland between 2000 and 2005, fish was less likely to be a major part of families’ diet than was poultry.
Nowhere it is mentioned that only the new arrivals were responsible for the increase in fish consumption.
It could be that the whole of increased population was responsible for the increase.

B)In 2005, the residents of Eastland consumed twice as much poultry as fish.
Yes, the total consumption increased but no where it is mentioned that the residents consumed it.
They could be buying fish to simply feed the bear, dog or just make cod liver oil from that.

C)The per capita consumption of poultry in Eastland was higher in 2005 than it was in 2000.
CORRECT.

D)Between 2000 and 2005, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents.
Too many absolute modifiers here:
1) "regular part of the diet" Maybe they use it only during gatherings and functions.
2) "significant proportion" Maybe only a insignificant proportion consume a lot of fish and poultry?

E)Between 2000 and 2005, the profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did the profits of wholesale distributors of fish.
_________________
Please consider giving Kudos if you like my explanation
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2509
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2016, 19:36
suppose we have 1,000,000 people
and we have 1 fish/person and 0.5 chicken per person. -> I agree, not a good way to look at it, but good to understand why C is bad.
we have 1 fish and 0.5 chicken per capita. 500k chicken

population increased by 6% we have 1,060,000 people. chicken 9% increase. 545,000 now.
545000/1060000 = 545/1050 slightly more than 1/2

C works fine.
Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2017
Posts: 187
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V34
GPA: 4
WE: Project Management (Education)
Re: In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2017, 19:55
IMO C

a) we dont know that for sure. what if existing people stopped eating fish and started eating poultry.

b) we cannot infer anything from their amounts.

c) This is true, the per capita consumption of poultry products increased.

d) we cannot infer this.

e) profits is out of problem's scope.
VP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1492
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2017, 14:18
this question is an easy one. It is also a common pattern.
Manager
Joined: 04 Oct 2018
Posts: 159
Location: Viet Nam
In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2019, 04:46
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

This argument includes statistics about the relative increases in the consumption of fish and poultry in Eastland, respectively, as well as the population growth in Eastland during the same period. Because we are given only information about the percentage increases of fish consumption, poultry consumption, and the population of Eastland, we should look for an inference that is closely tied to percentage information and not actual numbers.
(A) Though poultry consumption increased at a higher rate than fish consumption, there is no way to determine if this is due to the dietary habits of the new arrivals in Eastland. It is also possible that consumption among long- time residents of Eastland increased at a dramatically higher rate.
(B) We are given information about the relative rate of increases, not the actual amounts of poultry or fish consumed. As a result, there is no way to know if this statement is true.
(C) CORRECT. As we are given that the population of Eastland increased by 6 percent, and the total consumption of poultry increased by 9 percent in the same period, then it must be the case that the per capita, or average, consumption of poultry rose from 2000 to 2005. For example, let's say that the population of Eastland increased by 6 percent from 1000 to 1060 people, while the consumption of poultry increased by 9 percent from 100 to 109 units. The per capita consumption in 2000 would have been exactly 100/1000 while the per capita consumption in 2005 would have been 109/1060, a slightly greater value.
(D) There is no way to determine if fish or poultry comprised a regular portion of the diets of “a significant proportion” of Eastland residents, as the cited percentage increases may have come from very low original amounts.
(E) There are many variables in determining the profits of wholesale distributors aside from the total consumption of poultry or fish. For example, labor costs, transport, and procurement could all impact the profitability of distribution companies. It is not possible to determine that the profitability of these companies maintained the same relationship as the total consumption of poultry and fish.
_________________
"It Always Seems Impossible Until It Is Done"
In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of   [#permalink] 29 Mar 2019, 04:46
Display posts from previous: Sort by