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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
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.
1. Let's calculate the percentage growth for each pesticide type:
- Herbicides & PGR went from (7300 - 3100) = 4200 to (12400 - 6600) = 5800, which is a percentage growth of \(\frac{5800 - 4200}{4200} * 100\% \approx 38.1\%\). - Insecticides went from (3100 - 1150) = 1950 to (6600 - 2200) = 4400, which is a percentage growth of \(\frac{4400 - 1950}{1950} * 100\% \approx 125.6\%\). - Fungicides and Other went from (1150 - 0) = 1150 to (2200 - 0) = 2200, which is a percentage growth of \(\frac{2200 - 1150}{1150} * 100\% \approx 91.3\%\).
So, Insecticides experienced the most growth.
2. To find out how much insecticides accounted for total expenditures in 1994, we first have to find the total expenditures. This is the top of the graph if we draw a vertical at the year 1994 - 10000. Now, the difference between the intersections of the same vertical with top and bottom of the gray area, or 4050 - 1400 = 2650. The percentage will be \(\frac{2650}{10000} * 100\% = 26.5\%\).
3. Our answer will be: D1 - Insecticides and D2 - "between 25% and 30%".
For the year 1994, I took the user expenditure for Fungicides as 1500, Insecticides as 4000 and Herbicides and plant growth as 10000 which comes down to the total 15500.
Thank you so much for providing a detailed analysis of this problem. Somehow, I got the answer correct. But now I realize that my approach is completely wrong. Thank you!
Bismuth83
1. Let's calculate the percentage growth for each pesticide type:
- Herbicides & PGR went from (7300 - 3100) = 4200 to (12400 - 6600) = 5800, which is a percentage growth of \(\frac{5800 - 4200}{4200} * 100\% \approx 38.1\%\). - Insecticides went from (3100 - 1150) = 1950 to (6600 - 2200) = 4400, which is a percentage growth of \(\frac{4400 - 1950}{1950} * 100\% \approx 125.6\%\). - Fungicides and Other went from (1150 - 0) = 1150 to (2200 - 0) = 2200, which is a percentage growth of \(\frac{2200 - 1150}{1150} * 100\% \approx 91.3\%\).
So, Insecticides experienced the most growth.
2. To find out how much insecticides accounted for total expenditures in 1994, we first have to find the total expenditures. This is the top of the graph if we draw a vertical at the year 1994 - 10000. Now, the difference between the intersections of the same vertical with top and bottom of the gray area, or 4050 - 1400 = 2650. The percentage will be \(\frac{2650}{10000} * 100\% = 26.5\%\).
3. Our answer will be: D1 - Insecticides and D2 - "between 25% and 30%".
Hello, I have a quick question. Just to confirm — is this the correct way to interpret the graph? I thought the total expenditure for, say, 1988 is 1,000 + 3,000 + 7,000 = approximately 11,000. In other words, when looking at the herbicide values, we don’t subtract the insecticide or fungicide values below it. The chart stacks these values cumulatively — the height of the herbicide band represents its direct value, while the insecticide and fungicide values lie below. Please confirm if I’m missing something here. Thanks!
Bismuth83
1. Let's calculate the percentage growth for each pesticide type:
- Herbicides & PGR went from (7300 - 3100) = 4200 to (12400 - 6600) = 5800, which is a percentage growth of \(\frac{5800 - 4200}{4200} * 100\% \approx 38.1\%\). - Insecticides went from (3100 - 1150) = 1950 to (6600 - 2200) = 4400, which is a percentage growth of \(\frac{4400 - 1950}{1950} * 100\% \approx 125.6\%\). - Fungicides and Other went from (1150 - 0) = 1150 to (2200 - 0) = 2200, which is a percentage growth of \(\frac{2200 - 1150}{1150} * 100\% \approx 91.3\%\).
So, Insecticides experienced the most growth.
2. To find out how much insecticides accounted for total expenditures in 1994, we first have to find the total expenditures. This is the top of the graph if we draw a vertical at the year 1994 - 10000. Now, the difference between the intersections of the same vertical with top and bottom of the gray area, or 4050 - 1400 = 2650. The percentage will be \(\frac{2650}{10000} * 100\% = 26.5\%\).
3. Our answer will be: D1 - Insecticides and D2 - "between 25% and 30%".
Hello, I have a quick question. Just to confirm — is this the correct way to interpret the graph? I thought the total expenditure for, say, 1988 is 1,000 + 3,000 + 7,000 = approximately 11,000. In other words, when looking at the herbicide values, we don’t subtract the insecticide or fungicide values below it. The chart stacks these values cumulatively — the height of the herbicide band represents its direct value, while the insecticide and fungicide values lie below. Please confirm if I’m missing something here. Thanks!
Show more
The chart is a stacked area graph, so the height of each band’s thickness (not the line itself) shows that pesticide type’s value. The top of the whole stack gives total spending.
So in and all for stacked area graphs, are we focusing only on the coloured portion of each band i.e the height of each layer to determine value of that particular band rather than taking the X-axis as the baseline for each band? That means the bottom layer uses the x-axis as its baseline, while each subsequent layer uses the top of the layer below it as its baseline.
Please let me know if I'm correct in my understanding. Thanks!
Bunuel
The chart is a stacked area graph, so the height of each band’s thickness (not the line itself) shows that pesticide type’s value. The top of the whole stack gives total spending.
So in and all for stacked area graphs, are we focusing only on the coloured portion of each band i.e the height of each layer to determine value of that particular band rather than taking the X-axis as the baseline for each band? That means the bottom layer uses the x-axis as its baseline, while each subsequent layer uses the top of the layer below it as its baseline.
Please let me know if I'm correct in my understanding. Thanks!
Show more
Each band’s thickness shows its value. The bottom band starts at the x-axis, and each one above starts where the one below ends.