Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
68% (01:41) correct
32%
(01:44)
wrong
based on 2761
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
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.
15 Aug 2009, 04:54
Kudos
Bookmarks
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...
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...
03 Apr 2021, 08:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
crejoc
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.
