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.
02 Jun 2023, 06:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
17% (01:56) correct
83%
(02:17)
wrong
based on 129
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The average price of chicken in the United States was $1.50 per pound from 1995 to 1999 and $2.00 per pound from 2000 to 2004, an increase of about 33 percent. Meanwhile, the average consumption of chicken per capita per year from 1995 to 1999 was 100 pounds; the corresponding figure for 2000 to 2004 was the same. It seems, then, that rising chicken prices have no effect on consumers’ decisions.
The conclusion above would be more properly drawn if we knew that:
(A) Inflation did not increase the price index by as much as 33 percent from the first period to the second and thereby make the real prices between the two periods equal.
(B) Average per capita income in the United States was less than 33 percent higher from 2000 to 2004 than from 1995 to 1999.
(C) The average price of beef during 2000 to 2004 was not higher than it was from 1994 to 1999, so that consumers looked for alternatives.
(D) In general, American consumers are price-insensitive.
(E) From 2005 to 2009, the average price of chicken in the United States will reach $2.67 per pound but the average consumption of chicken per capita per year will remain 100 pounds.
The conclusion above would be more properly drawn if we knew that:
(A) Inflation did not increase the price index by as much as 33 percent from the first period to the second and thereby make the real prices between the two periods equal.
(B) Average per capita income in the United States was less than 33 percent higher from 2000 to 2004 than from 1995 to 1999.
(C) The average price of beef during 2000 to 2004 was not higher than it was from 1994 to 1999, so that consumers looked for alternatives.
(D) In general, American consumers are price-insensitive.
(E) From 2005 to 2009, the average price of chicken in the United States will reach $2.67 per pound but the average consumption of chicken per capita per year will remain 100 pounds.
02 Jun 2023, 06:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
Best answer: (C)
Identify the conclusion and the premise(s):
Premise: The average price of chicken in the United States was $1.50 per pound from 1995 to 1999 and $2.00 per pound from 2000 to 2004.
Premise: The average consumption of chicken per capita per year from 1995 to 1999 was 100 pounds per person; the corresponding figure for 2000 to 2004 was the same.
Conclusion: Rising chicken prices have no effect on consumers’ decisions.
Explanations:
Identify question type and give some tips:
The correct answer will rule out alternate explanations; there may be several reasons why consumers did not cut down on chicken consumption. For example, it cannot be ruled out that they do not have a threshold at which point they would become price sensitive, but be careful of the scope: “had no effect” means we are concerned only with the periods in question (the past). Perhaps, also, they are not purchasing chicken for its intrinsic qualities…
Scan each answer choice by eliminating progressively each “wrong” answer to finish with the “best” answer:
(C) establishes that this is not the case, that chicken is not simply being substituted for an even more expensive commodity, and this is vital to the argument. We would still have no way of verifying or falsifying the conclusion regardless of whether (A) or (B) was true, so those choices are wrong, and consumers might still be price-sensitive even if they were richer. (D) makes an extreme statement that goes outside the scope of the argument; we are not concerned with generalities, only chicken. (E) adds a third data point but it need not be true for the argument to hold; we are concerned only with the periods in question.
Identify the conclusion and the premise(s):
Premise: The average price of chicken in the United States was $1.50 per pound from 1995 to 1999 and $2.00 per pound from 2000 to 2004.
Premise: The average consumption of chicken per capita per year from 1995 to 1999 was 100 pounds per person; the corresponding figure for 2000 to 2004 was the same.
Conclusion: Rising chicken prices have no effect on consumers’ decisions.
Explanations:
Identify question type and give some tips:
The correct answer will rule out alternate explanations; there may be several reasons why consumers did not cut down on chicken consumption. For example, it cannot be ruled out that they do not have a threshold at which point they would become price sensitive, but be careful of the scope: “had no effect” means we are concerned only with the periods in question (the past). Perhaps, also, they are not purchasing chicken for its intrinsic qualities…
Scan each answer choice by eliminating progressively each “wrong” answer to finish with the “best” answer:
(C) establishes that this is not the case, that chicken is not simply being substituted for an even more expensive commodity, and this is vital to the argument. We would still have no way of verifying or falsifying the conclusion regardless of whether (A) or (B) was true, so those choices are wrong, and consumers might still be price-sensitive even if they were richer. (D) makes an extreme statement that goes outside the scope of the argument; we are not concerned with generalities, only chicken. (E) adds a third data point but it need not be true for the argument to hold; we are concerned only with the periods in question.
03 Jun 2023, 00:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
Why is option A incorrect. It gives good explanation.
Information in option-A is important because if inflation accounted for the entire increase in chicken prices, then the real prices (adjusted for inflation) would remain the same between the two periods. In such a case, consumers would not be experiencing a true increase in chicken prices, and therefore the conclusion that rising prices have no effect on consumers' decisions would be more valid
Posted from my mobile device
Information in option-A is important because if inflation accounted for the entire increase in chicken prices, then the real prices (adjusted for inflation) would remain the same between the two periods. In such a case, consumers would not be experiencing a true increase in chicken prices, and therefore the conclusion that rising prices have no effect on consumers' decisions would be more valid
Posted from my mobile device
