Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 23:24 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 23:24
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
555-605 Level|   Assumption|         
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,365
Own Kudos:
778,133
 [18]
Given Kudos: 99,966
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,365
Kudos: 778,133
 [18]
Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons 29 Apr 2020, 01:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
18
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

73% (01:56) correct 27% (02:01) wrong based on 701 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet

Competition Mode Question



Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons spent on food was twice what it is today. Given that incomes have risen over the past thirty years, we can conclude that incomes have risen at a greater rate than the price of food in that period.

Which one of the following, if assumed, helps most to justify the conclusion drawn above?


(A) The amount of food eaten per capita today is identical to the amount of food eaten per capita thirty years ago.

(B) In general, single persons today eat healthier foods and eat less than their counterparts of thirty years ago.

(C) Single persons today, on average, purchase the same kinds of food items in the same quantities as they did thirty years ago.

(D) The prices of nonfood items single person purchase have risen faster than the price of food over the past thirty years.

(E) Unlike single persons, families today spend about the same percentage of their income on food as they did thirty years ago.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C
User avatar
exc4libur
User avatar
Joined: 24 Nov 2016
Last visit: 22 Mar 2022
Posts: 1,686
Own Kudos:
1,447
 [1]
Given Kudos: 607
Location: United States
Posts: 1,686
Kudos: 1,447
 [1]
Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons 29 Apr 2020, 06:38
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons spent on food was twice what it is today. Given that incomes have risen over the past thirty years, we can conclude that incomes have risen at a greater rate than the price of food in that period.

Which one of the following, if assumed, helps most to justify the conclusion drawn above?
(A) The amount of food eaten per capita today is identical to the amount of food eaten per capita thirty years ago.
(B) In general, single persons today eat healthier foods and eat less than their counterparts of thirty years ago.
(C) Single persons today, on average, purchase the same kinds of food items in the same quantities as they did thirty years ago.
(D) The prices of nonfood items single person purchase have risen faster than the price of food over the past thirty years.
(E) Unlike single persons, families today spend about the same percentage of their income on food as they did thirty years ago.
Show more

argument
past:food/income = 2x future:(food/income)
thus, income rate > price food rate

strg
ans (C) if amount and kind per person was different in the present, then, the price rate increased/decreased more than the income rate; weakening the argument.
avatar
Unassailable1991
avatar
Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Last visit: 01 Jun 2022
Posts: 185
Own Kudos:
18
 [1]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V38
GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V38
Posts: 185
Kudos: 18
 [1]
Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons 29 Apr 2020, 17:23
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
OA is C.

To justify the conclusion we must know exactly that whether the quantities of food items and types were same then and now.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
Shrey08
User avatar
Joined: 04 Mar 2020
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 127
Own Kudos:
169
 [1]
Given Kudos: 305
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V30
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V30
Posts: 127
Kudos: 169
 [1]
Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons 29 Apr 2020, 21:04
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Let's say 30 years ago the the income was 100 and expenditure on food was 20%

Today the income is 1000 and the expenditure, according to the passage, is 10%

So, to conclude that income has increased at a greater rate (100-->1000) than food price, we have to assume that the increase in the expenditure on food (20-->100) is due to increase in food price and not due to the increase in consumption.

This is pointed out in Answer Option "A". But this doesn't tell that relative increase in food price is lower than the increase in income. So if we assume that there is no change in the purchase behavior of the consumer in 30 years "we can conclude that incomes have risen at a greater rate than the price of food in that period."

I think correct assumption is option "C".

@Experts- Can you please tell if my reasoning is correct.
avatar
chaitralirr
avatar
Joined: 17 Mar 2019
Last visit: 07 Oct 2021
Posts: 363
Own Kudos:
290
 [1]
Given Kudos: 35
Location: India
Concentration: Healthcare, General Management
Schools:
GPA: 3.75
WE:Pharmaceuticals (Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals)
Schools:
Posts: 363
Kudos: 290
 [1]
Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons 29 Apr 2020, 23:44
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons spent on food was twice what it is today. Given that incomes have risen over the past thirty years, we can conclude that incomes have risen at a greater rate than the price of food in that period.

The author needs to assume that the per capita foods is same now as for the last thirty years only then the comparison can be drawn. IMO A

Which one of the following, if assumed, helps most to justify the conclusion drawn above?


(A) The amount of food eaten per capita today is identical to the amount of food eaten per capita thirty years ago.

(B) In general, single persons today eat healthier foods and eat less than their counterparts of thirty years ago.

(C) Single persons today, on average, purchase the same kinds of food items in the same quantities as they did thirty years ago.

(D) The prices of nonfood items single person purchase have risen faster than the price of food over the past thirty years.

(E) Unlike single persons, families today spend about the same percentage of their income on food as they did thirty years ago.
avatar
KADELSANJAY
avatar
Joined: 03 Aug 2019
Last visit: 03 Nov 2020
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 108
Posts: 4
Kudos: 1
Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons 10 May 2020, 00:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Veritas Karisma egmat Can you please explain why A is incorrect. A says quantity consumed is the same as 30 years ago. So we can very clearly say that income increase is more than the price. What am I Missing?
User avatar
ShankSouljaBoi
User avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2017
Last visit: 17 Apr 2024
Posts: 622
Own Kudos:
603
Given Kudos: 4,090
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Rotman '23 (D) IIMA PGPX'22 (D) Desautels '23 (D) Schulich Sept '23 (D) WBS (D) IIML IPMX'25 (A)
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 620 Q47 V30
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
GPA: 3.1
WE:Corporate Finance (Non-Profit and Government)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Rotman '23 (D) IIMA PGPX'22 (D) Desautels '23 (D) Schulich Sept '23 (D) WBS (D) IIML IPMX'25 (A)
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
Posts: 622
Kudos: 603
Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons 11 May 2020, 09:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Another reason to reject A .... The option tells about entire population, while we care only about consumption habit of single people.
User avatar
Codebug4it
User avatar
Joined: 01 Nov 2017
Last visit: 15 Nov 2021
Posts: 106
Own Kudos:
129
 [2]
Given Kudos: 333
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Leadership
Schools: ISB '21
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V36
GPA: 4
WE:Web Development (Consulting)
Schools: ISB '21
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V36
Posts: 106
Kudos: 129
 [2]
Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons 31 May 2020, 04:28
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KADELSANJAY
Veritas Karisma egmat Can you please explain why A is incorrect. A says quantity consumed is the same as 30 years ago. So we can very clearly say that income increase is more than the price. What am I Missing?
Show more


Hi KADELSANJAY,

Option A says the consumption was the same as 30 years ago. Consumption is not equivalent to money spent.

Chances are individuals who bought more food but consumed less before or now they are buying more but consuming the same as before. The argument explicitly talks about "money spent" on food.

This is the reason Option C is correct because it says the individuals bought the same kind of food and in similar quantities, which means only the monetary value is the difference. If they are spending less as a percentage of income that means the prices have not increased more than the income.

I hope this helps :)
User avatar
prakharpandey2102
User avatar
Joined: 29 May 2021
Last visit: 05 Dec 2023
Posts: 6
Given Kudos: 93
Location: India
Schools: McDonough '25 (II)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.73
Schools: McDonough '25 (II)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons 29 Oct 2023, 20:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can someone please help eliminate the wrong choices here. Thanks in advance
User avatar
unraveled
User avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2019
Last visit: 10 Apr 2025
Posts: 2,721
Own Kudos:
2,258
Given Kudos: 763
Location: India
WE:Sales (Energy)
Posts: 2,721
Kudos: 2,258
Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons 17 Dec 2023, 08:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons spent on food was twice what it is today. Given that incomes have risen over the past thirty years, we can conclude that incomes have risen at a greater rate than the price of food in that period.

Which one of the following, if assumed, helps most to justify the conclusion drawn above?

(A) The amount of food eaten per capita today is identical to the amount of food eaten per capita thirty years ago. - WRONG. Slight scope shift since it bring the whole population in context which is not even sufficient forget about being necessary.

(B) In general, single persons today eat healthier foods and eat less than their counterparts of thirty years ago. - WRONG. Wrong comparison of another factor that leads us to nowhere.

(C) Single persons today, on average, purchase the same kinds of food items in the same quantities as they did thirty years ago. - CORRECT. If not then amount of money as a percentage is impacted.

(D) The prices of nonfood items single person purchase have risen faster than the price of food over the past thirty years. - WRONG. This factor does not help in conclusion to be built as it is. It may or may not be so the case if this option is true.

(E) Unlike single persons, families today spend about the same percentage of their income on food as they did thirty years ago. - WRONG. Families is out of scope of the passage like per capita factor introduced in option A. What families do then is totally out of context.

Answer C.
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts