Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons

Question

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.

exc4libur · Answer

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.

Unassailable1991 · Answer

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

Shrey08 · Answer

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.

chaitralirr · Answer

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.

KADELSANJAY · Answer

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?

ShankSouljaBoi · Answer

Another reason to reject A .... The option tells about entire population, while we care only about consumption habit of single people.

Codebug4it · Answer

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

prakharpandey2102 · Answer

Can someone please help eliminate the wrong choices here. Thanks in advance

unraveled · Answer

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.

Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Thirty years ago, the percentage of their income that single persons

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards