crejoc wrote:
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.
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.
_________________