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.
Jul 0901:00 PM EDT
-02:00 PM EDT
More Target Test Prep students are earning 100th percentile GMAT scores. Don’t settle for less when the Target Test Prep course gives you everything you need to score high on the GMAT. Start your 5-day free trial today.
Jul 1206:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join our webinar to master GMAT RC Main Point Questions! Learn effective strategies to decipher passage themes and purposes. Senior Verbal Expert- Sunita Singhvi will equip you with tools to navigate complexities and avoid common traps set by the GMAT.
Jul 1311:00 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Looking for your GMAT motivation to break through the score plateau? Pragati improved her score by massive 160 points with strategic guidance and hard-work! Find out how personalized mentorship and a strong mindset can turn GMAT struggles into success.
Jul 1508:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Jul 1611:00 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.
Jul 1911:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
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
16 Oct 2024, 19:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
Can somebody please explain how you rule out 1989 and instead select 1993 for the first box on the third question??
There is a large jump from 1989 to 1990 which may be perceived as the start of the campaign, now obviously this is wrong, but I’m failing to understand how it couldn’t be both 1989 and the correct answer as well
There is a large jump from 1989 to 1990 which may be perceived as the start of the campaign, now obviously this is wrong, but I’m failing to understand how it couldn’t be both 1989 and the correct answer as well
16 Oct 2024, 19:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
What in the world is the explanation for this third question? It seems to be affirming that the answer should be yes when indeed it should be no for the reason that in the Grass they give you no information on per capita job growth or job growth in any way Just overall in income, which also says nothing about wage rates. It’s possible that they’re making more by working more at lower wages, not necessarily higher wages
For this reason, this official question is poorly written, or at least the answer explanation and should be revised
For this reason, this official question is poorly written, or at least the answer explanation and should be revised
Attachments
IMG_0174.png [ 341.69 KiB | Viewed 962 times ]
30 Dec 2024, 21:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
But the consumption post 1999 has increased per-capita - and when we talk about recession it says demand decreases. how does both logically follow?
1. For each of the following statements, select Yes if, based on the information provided in the passage or the first graph or both, the statement would have been true in 2003. Otherwise, select No.
2. Which one of the following data ranges in the second graph most clearly indicates that the final sentence of the Discussion tab involves oversimplification?
A. 1998 to 2003
B. 1992 to 1994
C. 1987 to 1988
D. 1988 to 1989
E. 1994 to 1996
3. Assuming each of the following statements is true, select Yes if the statement helps explain trends shown in the second graph in a way that is consistent with information in the passage. Otherwise, select No.
Hi KarishmaB ryanstarr! I'm not getting the 2nd and 3rd statements of the 3rd question. Can you help me? Thank you!
Note the question stem of question 3: Assuming each of the following statements is true, select Yes if the statement helps explain trends shown in the second graph in a way that is consistent with information in the passage.
The given statement needs to be taken to be true. We need to select 'Yes' if the statement helps explain the trend we see in graph 2 (regarding production & consumption in Brazil)
Given Statement 2: Worldwide demand for coffee began to fall in 1999, resulting in economic recessions in most coffee producing countries.
Brazil is a coffee producing country. We see that 1999 onwards, its monthly income is falling (the line graph shows monthly income). Recession can explain the downward trend in the monthly income. Hence, this statement does explain the trend. "YES"
Given Statement 3: The trend in per capita consumption of coffee in Brazil between 1986 and 2003 is indicative of the trend in the global per capita rate of production.
Graph 2 gives us the trend in per capita consumption of coffee in Brazil between 1986 and 2003 (the bar graph) but we are not given the trend in global production. This statement does not explain graph 2. Graph 2 does not give us global per capita rate of production.
Hence, "NO".
Will2020
KarishmaB
Will2020
Sajjad1994
Project IR Butler 2019-20 - Get one IR Question Everyday
Question # 224, Date : 13-May-2020
This post is a part of Project IR Butler 2019-20. Click here for Details
Question # 224, Date : 13-May-2020
This post is a part of Project IR Butler 2019-20. Click here for Details
Discussion
The passage is based on a document published in 2005.
The rate of growth in global coffee consumption has been falling behind the rate of growth in global production, creating a scenario of recurring price crises that take a heavy toll on coffee producing countries. Programs to expand coffee consumption in coffee producing countries can improve the situation and make the cyclical crises less acute.
In mature markets, costs to increase consumption are probably higher than in emerging markets, such as Brazil, the largest coffee producer. The case of Brazil shows that probably the highest returns for institutional investments to develop coffee consumption are to be found in the emerging markets of coffee producing countries. A Brazilian institutional investment valued at US$25 million in 10 years brought about an increase in yearly coffee sales worth 40 times as much. Promotion of coffee consumption in coffee producing countries is likely to represent the best investment of scarce promotion resources because of this multiplier effect. There are huge gaps in per capita consumption between Brazil and many other smaller producers, some (such as Indonesia) with large populations.
It is often argued that the Brazilian promotion program worked only because there was a marked income increase within the same period. But income increases alone, without promotion, are not sufficient to increase coffee consumption. Actually, for the 20 years up to 2003 in Brazil, it was only during the period 1993 to 1998 that coffee consumption increased as income was increasing.
The passage is based on a document published in 2005.
The rate of growth in global coffee consumption has been falling behind the rate of growth in global production, creating a scenario of recurring price crises that take a heavy toll on coffee producing countries. Programs to expand coffee consumption in coffee producing countries can improve the situation and make the cyclical crises less acute.
In mature markets, costs to increase consumption are probably higher than in emerging markets, such as Brazil, the largest coffee producer. The case of Brazil shows that probably the highest returns for institutional investments to develop coffee consumption are to be found in the emerging markets of coffee producing countries. A Brazilian institutional investment valued at US$25 million in 10 years brought about an increase in yearly coffee sales worth 40 times as much. Promotion of coffee consumption in coffee producing countries is likely to represent the best investment of scarce promotion resources because of this multiplier effect. There are huge gaps in per capita consumption between Brazil and many other smaller producers, some (such as Indonesia) with large populations.
It is often argued that the Brazilian promotion program worked only because there was a marked income increase within the same period. But income increases alone, without promotion, are not sufficient to increase coffee consumption. Actually, for the 20 years up to 2003 in Brazil, it was only during the period 1993 to 1998 that coffee consumption increased as income was increasing.
First graph
This graph shows the gaps between the quantities of coffee produced and the quantities of coffee consumed in the coffee producing countries. Only consumption is shown for Brazil; its 2003 production was much higher than that of Central America.
This graph shows the gaps between the quantities of coffee produced and the quantities of coffee consumed in the coffee producing countries. Only consumption is shown for Brazil; its 2003 production was much higher than that of Central America.
Attachment:
123.jpg
Second graph
Attachment:
223.jpg
1. For each of the following statements, select Yes if, based on the information provided in the passage or the first graph or both, the statement would have been true in 2003. Otherwise, select No.
| Yes....... | No...... | Statements |
| Coffee production and per capita coffee consumption in Brazil are significantly higher than in most of the major coffee producing countries. | ||
| The coffee consumed in the major coffee producing countries comes entirely from domestic production. | ||
| As a means of boosting world coffee demand, increasing consumption of domestically produced coffee has greater potential in India than in China. |
Yes, No and Yes
2. Which one of the following data ranges in the second graph most clearly indicates that the final sentence of the Discussion tab involves oversimplification?
A. 1998 to 2003
B. 1992 to 1994
C. 1987 to 1988
D. 1988 to 1989
E. 1994 to 1996
D
3. Assuming each of the following statements is true, select Yes if the statement helps explain trends shown in the second graph in a way that is consistent with information in the passage. Otherwise, select No.
| Yes......... | No...... | Statements |
| Brazil’s 10-year program to promote domestic coffee consumption through institutional investment began in 1993. | ||
| Worldwide demand for coffee began to fall in 1999, resulting in economic recessions in most coffee producing countries. | ||
| The trend in per capita consumption of coffee in Brazil between 1986 and 2003 is indicative of the trend in the global per capita rate of production. |
Yes, Yes and No
Hi KarishmaB ryanstarr! I'm not getting the 2nd and 3rd statements of the 3rd question. Can you help me? Thank you!
Note the question stem of question 3: Assuming each of the following statements is true, select Yes if the statement helps explain trends shown in the second graph in a way that is consistent with information in the passage.
The given statement needs to be taken to be true. We need to select 'Yes' if the statement helps explain the trend we see in graph 2 (regarding production & consumption in Brazil)
Given Statement 2: Worldwide demand for coffee began to fall in 1999, resulting in economic recessions in most coffee producing countries.
Brazil is a coffee producing country. We see that 1999 onwards, its monthly income is falling (the line graph shows monthly income). Recession can explain the downward trend in the monthly income. Hence, this statement does explain the trend. "YES"
Given Statement 3: The trend in per capita consumption of coffee in Brazil between 1986 and 2003 is indicative of the trend in the global per capita rate of production.
Graph 2 gives us the trend in per capita consumption of coffee in Brazil between 1986 and 2003 (the bar graph) but we are not given the trend in global production. This statement does not explain graph 2. Graph 2 does not give us global per capita rate of production.
Hence, "NO".
Will2020
