It is currently 19 Sep 2017, 06:51

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Please explain

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 71

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Please explain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2008, 01:13
Ditrama is a federation made up of three autonomous

regions: Korva, Mitro, and Guadar. Under the federal

revenue-sharing plan, each region receives a share of

federal revenues equal to the share of the total

population of Ditrama residing in that region, as

shown by a yearly population survey. Last year, the

percentage of federal revenues Korva received for its

share decreased somewhat even though the

population survey on which the revenue-sharing was

based showed that Korva's population had increased.

If the statements above are true, which one of the

following must also have been shown by the

population survey on which last year's

revenue-sharing in Ditrama was based?

(A) Of the three regions, Korva had the smallest

number of residents.

(B) The population of Korva grew by a smaller

percentage than it did in previous years.

(C) The populations of Mitro and Guadar each

increased by a percentage that exceeded the

percentage by which the population of

Korva increased.

(D) Of the three regions, Korva's numerical

increase in population was the smallest.

(E) Korva's population grew by a smaller

percentage than did the population of at

least one of the other two autonomous

regions.


Please explain with proper reasons...if possible also give a general rule to tackle such kind of question...i am very weak in dealing with such questions...

thanks!

bepositive

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 432

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 1

Re: Please explain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2008, 01:56
Ditrama is a federation made up of three autonomous regions: Korva, Mitro, and Guadar. Under the federal revenue-sharing plan, each region receives a share of federal revenues equal to the share of the total population of Ditrama residing in that region, as shown by a yearly population survey. Last year, the percentage of federal revenues Korva received for its share decreased somewhat even though the population survey on which the revenue-sharing was based showed that Korva's population had increased. If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also have been shown by the
population survey on which last year's revenue-sharing in Ditrama was based?

(A) Of the three regions, Korva had the smallest number of residents.

(B) The population of Korva grew by a smaller percentage than it did in previous years.

(C) The populations of Mitro and Guadar each increased by a percentage that exceeded the percentage by which the population of Korva increased.

(D) Of the three regions, Korva's numerical increase in population was the smallest.

(E) Korva's population grew by a smaller percentage than did the population of at least one of the other two autonomous
regions.

Please format your question correctly for better readability

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 1

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Posts: 202

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Re: Please explain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2008, 03:31
nmohindru wrote:
Ditrama is a federation made up of three autonomous regions: Korva, Mitro, and Guadar. Under the federal revenue-sharing plan, each region receives a share of federal revenues equal to the share of the total population of Ditrama residing in that region, as shown by a yearly population survey. Last year, the percentage of federal revenues Korva received for its share decreased somewhat even though the population survey on which the revenue-sharing was based showed that Korva's population had increased.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following must also have been shown by the population survey on which last year's revenue-sharing in Ditrama was based?

(A) Of the three regions, Korva had the smallest number of residents.

(B) The population of Korva grew by a smaller percentage than it did in previous years.

(C) The populations of Mitro and Guadar each increased by a percentage that exceeded the percentage by which the population of Korva increased.

(D) Of the three regions, Korva's numerical increase in population was the smallest.

(E) Korva's population grew by a smaller percentage than did the population of at least one of the other two autonomous
regions.

Please format your question correctly for better readability


[Fact]
Ditrima = Korva + Mitro + Guadar
Revenue sharing is based on the portion of population.
Korva portion decreased while its population increased.

Answer should be C.

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 May 2008
Posts: 187

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Re: Please explain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2008, 05:36
IMO C. In D we have a numerical growth, but the author speaks about share, so I think C is the right answer.

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 245

Kudos [?]: 259 [0], given: 0

Re: Please explain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2008, 07:52
IMO E.

Ditrima = Korva + Mitro + Guadar

Now when Korva's share has decreased .. ( Mitro+Guadar )'s share has increased. that does not require each of Mitro and Gaudar's share to increase as long as the combined share increase is more than that of Korva's

Kudos [?]: 259 [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Posts: 46

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Re: Please explain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2008, 09:51
ssandeepan wrote:
IMO E.

Ditrima = Korva + Mitro + Guadar

Now when Korva's share has decreased .. ( Mitro+Guadar )'s share has increased. that does not require each of Mitro and Gaudar's share to increase as long as the combined share increase is more than that of Korva's


i beg to differ to your logic.
Thre requirement is ( Mitro+Guadar )'s share has to increase. If only one increases and no information is provided for other, you cannot make that conclusion. Mitro + Guadar could remain the same, however Mitro could have increased by 10 fold and Guadar might have reduced accrodingly.

If both Mitro and Guadar increased, then Mitro+guadar would definitely increase. IMO C

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 432

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 1

Re: Please explain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Sep 2008, 08:29
kandyhot27 wrote:
ssandeepan wrote:
IMO E.

Ditrima = Korva + Mitro + Guadar

Now when Korva's share has decreased .. ( Mitro+Guadar )'s share has increased. that does not require each of Mitro and Gaudar's share to increase as long as the combined share increase is more than that of Korva's


i beg to differ to your logic.
Thre requirement is ( Mitro+Guadar )'s share has to increase. If only one increases and no information is provided for other, you cannot make that conclusion. Mitro + Guadar could remain the same, however Mitro could have increased by 10 fold and Guadar might have reduced accrodingly.

If both Mitro and Guadar increased, then Mitro+guadar would definitely increase. IMO C


The argument says "Last year, the percentage of federal revenues Korva received for its share decreased somewhat" which means the share can decrease even compared to one other state.

E) says "at least one of" which goes with above statement so IMO E)

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 1

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Aug 2008
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: Please explain [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Sep 2008, 09:31
I agree with E as well. E does not come as too strong and answers like these are usually correct on the GMAT.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: Please explain   [#permalink] 01 Sep 2008, 09:31
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Please explain

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.