May 24 10:00 PM PDT  11:00 PM PDT Join a FREE 1day workshop and learn how to ace the GMAT while keeping your fulltime job. Limited for the first 99 registrants. May 25 07:00 AM PDT  09:00 AM PDT Attend this webinar and master GMAT SC in 10 days by learning how meaning and logic can help you tackle 700+ level SC questions with ease. May 27 01:00 AM PDT  11:59 PM PDT All GMAT Club Tests are free and open on May 27th for Memorial Day! May 27 10:00 PM PDT  11:00 PM PDT Special savings are here for Magoosh GMAT Prep! Even better  save 20% on the plan of your choice, now through midnight on Tuesday, 5/27 May 30 10:00 PM PDT  11:00 PM PDT Application deadlines are just around the corner, so now’s the time to start studying for the GMAT! Start today and save 25% on your GMAT prep. Valid until May 30th.
Author 
Message 
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 55271

Question Stats:
67% (01:29) correct 33% (01:36) wrong based on 256 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
The population of Linterhast was 3,600 people in 1990 and 4,800 people in 1993. If the population growth rate per thousand is constant, then what will be the population in 1996? A. 6,000 B. 6,400 C. 7,200 D. 8,000 E. 9,600
Official Answer and Stats are available only to registered users. Register/ Login.
_________________



Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 55271

Re M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
16 Sep 2014, 00:14
Official Solution:The population of Linterhast was 3,600 people in 1990 and 4,800 people in 1993. If the population growth rate per thousand is constant, then what will be the population in 1996? A. 6,000 B. 6,400 C. 7,200 D. 8,000 E. 9,600 This is a set rate problem. If the population grew by 1,200 people in the past three years, then it grew by 33 percent: \(\frac{48003600}{3600} = \frac{1200}{3600} = \frac{1}{3} \approx 33%\) Therefore in the next three years the population will grow at the same rate of 33% because the growth rate has been constant. \(4,800 + \frac{1}{3}*4,800 = 4,800 + 1,600 = 6,400\) Another approach is to backsolve by comparing the ratio of each answer to 4,800. For example, the ratio of 7,200 to 4,800 is not the same as the ratio of 4,800 to 3,600. Answer: B
_________________



Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Jul 2014
Posts: 295
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V31 GMAT 2: 640 Q44 V34 GMAT 3: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.58
WE: Analyst (Accounting)

Re: M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Nov 2014, 07:58
Ah this makes it so simple. Bunuel, if the question asked what would be the population 4 years from 93 i.e. in 97/gap not being uniform, how do we arrive at the answer quickly  assuming the answer choices are widely spread?
_________________
Cheers!! JAIf you like my post, let me know. Give me a kudos!



Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1104
Location: India

Re: M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
11 Oct 2015, 06:04
Bunuel wrote: Official Solution:
The population of Linterhast was 3,600 people in 1990 and 4,800 people in 1993. If the population growth rate per thousand is constant, then what will be the population in 1996?
A. 6,000 B. 6,400 C. 7,200 D. 8,000 E. 9,600
This is a set rate problem. If the population grew by 1,200 people in the past three years, then it grew by 33 percent: \(\frac{48003600}{3600} = \frac{1200}{3600} = \frac{1}{3} \approx 33%\) Therefore in the next three years the population will grow at the same rate of 33% because the growth rate has been constant. \(4,800 + \frac{1}{3}*4,800 = 4,800 + 1,600 = 6,400\) Another approach is to backsolve by comparing the ratio of each answer to 4,800. For example, the ratio of 7,200 to 4,800 is not the same as the ratio of 4,800 to 3,600.
Answer: B It is mentioned in the question that Population growth rate per thousand is constant but @Buneul you took % of increase in population as constant. Is this correct? I think u need to correct the question.



Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 55271

Re: M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
11 Oct 2015, 06:13
Mechmeera wrote: Bunuel wrote: Official Solution:
The population of Linterhast was 3,600 people in 1990 and 4,800 people in 1993. If the population growth rate per thousand is constant, then what will be the population in 1996?
A. 6,000 B. 6,400 C. 7,200 D. 8,000 E. 9,600
This is a set rate problem. If the population grew by 1,200 people in the past three years, then it grew by 33 percent: \(\frac{48003600}{3600} = \frac{1200}{3600} = \frac{1}{3} \approx 33%\) Therefore in the next three years the population will grow at the same rate of 33% because the growth rate has been constant. \(4,800 + \frac{1}{3}*4,800 = 4,800 + 1,600 = 6,400\) Another approach is to backsolve by comparing the ratio of each answer to 4,800. For example, the ratio of 7,200 to 4,800 is not the same as the ratio of 4,800 to 3,600.
Answer: B It is mentioned in the question that Population growth rate per thousand is constant but @Buneul you took % of increase in population as constant. Is this correct? I think u need to correct the question. The rate of increase in multiplying by some constant the same as the percentage increase.
_________________



Intern
Joined: 24 Apr 2016
Posts: 9

AdmitJA wrote: Ah this makes it so simple.
Bunuel, if the question asked what would be the population 4 years from 93 i.e. in 97/gap not being uniform, how do we arrive at the answer quickly  assuming the answer choices are widely spread? Let x = population growth rate per thousand each year 1990: 3.6 (unit: thousand people) 1991: \(3.6 + 3.6x = 3.6(x+1)\) 1992: \(3.6(x+1) + 3.6x(x+1) = 3.6(x+1)(x+1) = 3.6(x+1)^2\) Similarly: 1993: \(3.6(x+1)^3 = 4.8 => (x+1)^3 = 4/3 => x+1\) Now we can calculate the population in any year. E.g. 1997: \(3.6(x+1)^7\) (unit: thousand people)
_________________



Retired Moderator
Joined: 25 Feb 2013
Posts: 1214
Location: India
GPA: 3.82

Pop in 1990 = 3600, Pop in 1993 = 4800 Time = 3 yrs. Let rate of growth be r% per year
This implies \(4800 = 3600(1+\frac{r}{100})^3\)
This gives \((1+\frac{r}{100})^3 = \frac{4800}{3600}= \frac{4}{3}\)
Now Pop in 1996 i.e. 3 years after 1993 will be \(= 4800(1+\frac{r}{100})^3\)
\(=4800*\frac{4}{3} = 6400\)



Current Student
Joined: 21 Nov 2014
Posts: 20
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q47 V40 GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V38 GMAT 3: 750 Q49 V44
GPA: 3.1

Re: M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
23 Jul 2017, 11:54
I solved this question using the concept of linear growth and got the answer as 6000 as follows: y=mx+c where y is the final value,x is time,m is growth and c is the constant. at x=0,y=3600 so c=3600 Now when y=4800,x=3 so 4800=m*3+3600 which implies m=400 Thus at x=6,i.e in 1996, y=400*6+3600=6000.
Can't we use linear growth for this question?Where am I going wrong exactly?Please help



Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 55271

Re: M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
23 Jul 2017, 23:11
tanv4u wrote: I solved this question using the concept of linear growth and got the answer as 6000 as follows: y=mx+c where y is the final value,x is time,m is growth and c is the constant. at x=0,y=3600 so c=3600 Now when y=4800,x=3 so 4800=m*3+3600 which implies m=400 Thus at x=6,i.e in 1996, y=400*6+3600=6000.
Can't we use linear growth for this question?Where am I going wrong exactly?Please help It's exponential growth. So, it should be 4,800 = 3,600*n^3, which gives n^3 =4/3 > 4,800*4/3 = 6,400.
_________________



Intern
Joined: 10 Nov 2017
Posts: 1

Re M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Nov 2017, 19:43
I think this is a highquality question. my issue with the explanation is that i agree to the way it is explained but i m not fully convinced that this clears my doubt about why this question is solved in this particular manner.. i solved like this and want to know why my approach is wrong 48003600=1200/3=400 1990=3600 1991=3600+400=4000 1992=4000+400=4400 1993=4400+400=4800 (now when the rate is same for each year so i did this) 1994=4800+400=5200 1995=5200+400=5600 1996=5600+400=6000 according to this method i got 6000 as an answer please help me understand why i m wring what i m basically missing out...please explain



Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 55271

Re: M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Nov 2017, 22:59
mallika123 wrote: I think this is a highquality question. my issue with the explanation is that i agree to the way it is explained but i m not fully convinced that this clears my doubt about why this question is solved in this particular manner.. i solved like this and want to know why my approach is wrong 48003600=1200/3=400 1990=3600 1991=3600+400=4000 1992=4000+400=4400 1993=4400+400=4800 (now when the rate is same for each year so i did this) 1994=4800+400=5200 1995=5200+400=5600 1996=5600+400=6000 according to this method i got 6000 as an answer please help me understand why i m wring what i m basically missing out...please explain We are told that the population growth rate per thousand is constant, not that the population growth number is constant per year.
_________________



Intern
Joined: 09 Aug 2017
Posts: 23

Re: M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
23 Nov 2017, 18:52
Bunuel wrote: Official Solution:
The population of Linterhast was 3,600 people in 1990 and 4,800 people in 1993. If the population growth rate per thousand is constant, then what will be the population in 1996?
A. 6,000 B. 6,400 C. 7,200 D. 8,000 E. 9,600
This is a set rate problem. If the population grew by 1,200 people in the past three years, then it grew by 33 percent: \(\frac{48003600}{3600} = \frac{1200}{3600} = \frac{1}{3} \approx 33%\) Therefore in the next three years the population will grow at the same rate of 33% because the growth rate has been constant. \(4,800 + \frac{1}{3}*4,800 = 4,800 + 1,600 = 6,400\) Another approach is to backsolve by comparing the ratio of each answer to 4,800. For example, the ratio of 7,200 to 4,800 is not the same as the ratio of 4,800 to 3,600.
Answer: B \(4,800 + \frac{1}{3}*4,800 = 4,800 + 1,600 = 6,400\) I did not understand this equation ? Sent from my Redmi 3S using GMAT Club Forum mobile app



Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 55271

Re: M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
23 Nov 2017, 21:03
Spongebob02 wrote: Bunuel wrote: Official Solution:
The population of Linterhast was 3,600 people in 1990 and 4,800 people in 1993. If the population growth rate per thousand is constant, then what will be the population in 1996?
A. 6,000 B. 6,400 C. 7,200 D. 8,000 E. 9,600
This is a set rate problem. If the population grew by 1,200 people in the past three years, then it grew by 33 percent: \(\frac{48003600}{3600} = \frac{1200}{3600} = \frac{1}{3} \approx 33%\) Therefore in the next three years the population will grow at the same rate of 33% because the growth rate has been constant. \(4,800 + \frac{1}{3}*4,800 = 4,800 + 1,600 = 6,400\) Another approach is to backsolve by comparing the ratio of each answer to 4,800. For example, the ratio of 7,200 to 4,800 is not the same as the ratio of 4,800 to 3,600.
Answer: B \(4,800 + \frac{1}{3}*4,800 = 4,800 + 1,600 = 6,400\) I did not understand this equation ? Sent from my Redmi 3S using GMAT Club Forum mobile appIn three years from 1990 to 1993 the population grew by third. Since the growth rate is constant, then in the next three years, from 1993 to 1996, the population will also grow by third. Hope it's clear.
_________________



Intern
Joined: 19 Nov 2012
Posts: 28

Hi Bunuel, Is there any difference between "growth rate is constant" and "growth rate per 1000 is constant" ? If yes, can you please provide any simple example on how it's works out differently? I guess they both mean the same only but I'm not completely sure if that's true or if I've made any mistake below. growth rate is (48003600 )/ 3600 X 100 = 33.33% growth rate per year = 33.33 % / 3 = 11.11 % AND growth rate per thousand per year is ((4.8  3.6) / 3.6 X 100 ) /3 = 33.33% / 3 = 11.11% Also, here the time period before and after is 3. Let's say if for the same data if we'd to compute the population in 1997, how would you solve it? I tried and I get 3600 ( 10/9)^7 which is clearly wrong because 3600( 10/9)^3 is not equal to 4800. What's the mistake here? Seeing the explanation of the unitary method should help understand the original question and it's solution in a much more better way. This is good question and particularly confusing if someone is reading it for the first time. Thanks.



Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 55271

Re: M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
23 Jun 2018, 06:20
sanjay1810 wrote: Hi Bunuel, Is there any difference between "growth rate is constant" and "growth rate per 1000 is constant" ? If yes, can you please provide any simple example on how it's works out differently? I guess they both mean the same only but I'm not completely sure if that's true or if I've made any mistake below. growth rate is (48003600 )/ 3600 X 100 = 33.33% growth rate per year = 33.33 % / 3 = 11.11 % AND growth rate per thousand per year is ((4.8  3.6) / 3.6 X 100 ) /3 = 33.33% / 3 = 11.11% Also, here the time period before and after is 3. Let's say if for the same data if we'd to compute the population in 1997, how would you solve it? I tried and I get 3600 ( 10/9)^7 which is clearly wrong because 3600( 10/9)^3 is not equal to 4800. What's the mistake here? Seeing the explanation of the unitary method should help understand the original question and it's solution in a much more better way. This is good question and particularly confusing if someone is reading it for the first time. Thanks. 1. If the growth rate is constant, then it's constant for any period of time. 2. The growth rate per 3 years is 1 + 1/3 = 4/3, so per year it's x^3 = 4/3 > \(x = \sqrt[3]{\frac{4}{3}}\) 3. In 1993, the population would be \(3,600*(\sqrt[3]{\frac{4}{3}})^3 = 4,800\) 4. In 1997, the population would be \(3,600*(\sqrt[3]{\frac{4}{3}})^7 \approx 7,044\) Hope it helps.
_________________



Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Dec 2015
Posts: 284

Re: M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Feb 2019, 02:56
The population of Linterhast was 3,600 people in 1990 and 4,800 people in 1993. If the population growth rate per thousand is constant, then what will be the population in 1996?
A. 6,000 B. 6,400 > correct 1990>1993>1996 => 3.6k > 4.8k > 4.8 k *growth_rate = 4.8k * (4.8k/3.6k) = 4.8k * (4/3) = 1.6k * 4 = 6.4k C. 7,200 D. 8,000 E. 9,600



Intern
Joined: 24 Jun 2017
Posts: 18

Re: M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
14 Apr 2019, 00:44
Bunuel can you please elaborate a little more on your reply below? Its still not clear to me. What does population growth per 1000 mean? and How to identify this problem as exponential growth instead of linear growth?? Bunuel wrote: mallika123 wrote: I think this is a highquality question. my issue with the explanation is that i agree to the way it is explained but i m not fully convinced that this clears my doubt about why this question is solved in this particular manner.. i solved like this and want to know why my approach is wrong 48003600=1200/3=400 1990=3600 1991=3600+400=4000 1992=4000+400=4400 1993=4400+400=4800 (now when the rate is same for each year so i did this) 1994=4800+400=5200 1995=5200+400=5600 1996=5600+400=6000 according to this method i got 6000 as an answer please help me understand why i m wring what i m basically missing out...please explain We are told that the population growth rate per thousand is constant, not that the population growth number is constant per year.



Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 55271

Re: M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
14 Apr 2019, 01:10
shruthiarvindh wrote: Bunuel can you please elaborate a little more on your reply below? Its still not clear to me. What does population growth per 1000 mean? and How to identify this problem as exponential growth instead of linear growth?? Bunuel wrote: mallika123 wrote: I think this is a highquality question. my issue with the explanation is that i agree to the way it is explained but i m not fully convinced that this clears my doubt about why this question is solved in this particular manner.. i solved like this and want to know why my approach is wrong 48003600=1200/3=400 1990=3600 1991=3600+400=4000 1992=4000+400=4400 1993=4400+400=4800 (now when the rate is same for each year so i did this) 1994=4800+400=5200 1995=5200+400=5600 1996=5600+400=6000 according to this method i got 6000 as an answer please help me understand why i m wring what i m basically missing out...please explain We are told that the population growth rate per thousand is constant, not that the population growth number is constant per year. Take an example: say we are told that a population is growing 100 people per 1000 per year (10%). This means that every 1000 people "produce" 100 more. For example, if the population is 3,600 people in 1990, then in 1991, the growth will be 3*100 + 600/1000*100 = 360, which is 10% of 3,600. Another case would be if we are told that a population is growing 100 people per year. So, if the population is 3,600 people in 1990, then in 1991 it will be 3,600 + 100, in 1992 it will be 3,600 + 100 + 100, so basically each year adds another 100 people. Hope it's clear.
_________________



Intern
Joined: 12 Feb 2017
Posts: 2

Re M0109
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 May 2019, 01:44
I think this is a poorquality question and I agree with explanation.










