I03-06

Question

The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanese beaches, showing specific counts from a past year and from 2013.
      Beach     Year of Past Nest Count     Past Nest Count     2013 Nest Count     Prefecture       Akabane   1992   29   39   Aichi      Atsum   1996   19   50   Aichi      Hiwasa   1979   76   18   Tokushima      Inakahama   1986   540   2504   Kagoshima      Itoman   1992   4   19   Okinawa      Kujukuri   2004   15   39   Chiba      Maehama   1989   611   1637   Okinawa      Minaba Senri   1985   162   236   Wakayama      Miyazaki   1985   607   1143   Miyazaki      Nagahama   1997   106   612   Okinawa      Ohgi & Shimonokae   1995   9   30   Okayama      Okata   1991   19   37   Yamaguchi      Shima Peninsula   2000   25   43   Mie      Shingu   1989   15   15   Fukuoka      Toyohashi   1995   30   20   Aichi

For each of the following statements, select  True  if the statement can be verified to be true based on the information provided. Otherwise, select  False .

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

Statement 1: Based on the table, exactly two    prefectures   , based on their  total  nest counts, did not experience an increase from past estimates to 2013. "True"

You are missing the point! There are  three  beaches in Aichi Prefecture: Akabane, Atsumi, and Toyohashi. While one of the beaches, Toyohashi, did not experience an increase in nest count from past estimates to 2013, the  total  nest count for the entire prefecture  did  show an increase.

This is why Aichi is not included in the count of prefectures with no increase.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

Test one of the largest increases in the shortest period of time using the provided calculator. Nagahama beach had an initial estimate in 1997 of 106 nests and an estimate of 612 nests 17 years later for 2013. The total percent increase in that time was equal to (612 - 106) / 106 × 100 = 477%. That percentage divided by the 17 years would be approximately 34% per year.
 
 Statement 1: 
 
Based on the table, the  prefectures  that did not experience an increase in nest counts from past estimates to 2013 are:
 
• Tokushima (Hiwasa): Decreased from 76 to 18.
 
• Fukuoka (Shingu): Remained unchanged at 15.
 
Therefore, this statement is True.
 
P.S. There are  three  beaches in Aichi Prefecture: Akabane, Atsumi, and Toyohashi. While one of the beaches, Toyohashi, did not experience an increase in nest count from past estimates to 2013, the  total  nest count for the entire prefecture  did  show an increase.
 
This is why Aichi is not included in the count of prefectures with no increase.
 
 Statement 2: 
 
The greatest increase occurred at Nagahama Beach, where the nest count rose from 106 to 612, representing an increase of approximately six times, which corresponds to a 500% increase, not 600%. Therefore, this statement is False.
 
 Statement 3: 
 
From 1989 to 2013, the nest count at Maehama Beach increased from 611 to 1,637, corresponding to more than 2.5 times increase over 24 years:  611*rate^{24} =1,637 . If the rate remains the same, in 12 years, the nest count becomes  1,637*rate^{12} . Since  rate^{24} ≈ 2.5 , then  rate^{12}=\sqrt{2.5} . The square root of 2.5 is more than 1.5 ( 1.5^2 = 2.25 ), thus  rate^{12} > 1.5 . This means that the nest count from 1,637 will increase by more than 50%, resulting in more than 2,400 nests in 2025.

Correct answer:

Based on the table, exactly two prefectures, based on their total nest counts, did not experience an increase from past estimates to 2013.  "True"

Based on the table, the greatest percentage increase in nest counts from past estimates to 2013 was approximately 600%.  "False"

If the annual percentage rate of increase at Maehama Beach remained constant from 1989 to 2013 and continues at the same rate until 2025, the estimated nest count in 2025 will exceed 2,400.  "True"

Bunuel · Answer

I have revised the question, solution, and formatting by adding more details to enhance clarity.

revvneat · Answer

What about Toyohashi (Aichi) for Statement 1? It also did not experience an increase, wouldn't that make the statement false?

Bunuel · Answer

Please read carefully. The statement talks about the prefectures, not beaches.

Based on the table, exactly two  prefectures , based on their total nest counts, did not experience an increase from past estimates to 2013. "True"

The8 · Answer

Sorry, I don't understand why Aichi is not included in the counting of prefectures - it is clearly stated under Prefecture name and there are 3 prefectures not experiencing increase, can you help?

The8 · Answer

Thank you Bonuel, I got it!

sidisking · Answer

Not sure how that reply got sent by me but I did want to mention that the answer to this question was a little confusing as it didn't mention the point about the prefecture Aichi having multiple beaches and adding that up would result in total count being greater

Bunuel · Answer

Here is the first statement:

Based on the table, exactly two prefectures, based on their  total  nest counts, did not experience an increase from past estimates to 2013.

The mention of "total nest count" for the prefectures should hint that there might be more than one beach in a prefecture. Additionally, this is a table-based question where you are expected to sort the data by different parameters and analyze it. After all, not everything will be handed to you on a platter, right?

Manvi01 · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

Rashmi96 · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful. tricky, the first one

PunitJalan · Answer

This is a great question that’s helpful for learning.

Dsunny09 · Answer

I don’t quite agree with the solution. In case of statement 3, Why is the rate not considered as (1637-611)/(2013-1989)? This was the value at 2025 does not exceed 2500.

Bunuel · Answer

Here is the third statement:

In statement 3, the solution uses compound growth because the counts grow by a percentage each year, not by a fixed number of nests per year.

Your method, using (1637 - 611)/(2013 - 1989), gives the average increase in the number of nests per year, not the average percentage growth per year. That is why it does not match the correct approach and leads to the wrong projection for 2025.

commodivero · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

ayushgee · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

Goldenfuture · Answer

My thinking for solving part 3 was - the value doubles- rule of 72 - in similar years value will atleast double - no calculation - not sure if this is the right way of thinking

Alick1 · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

bbfr · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

I03-06

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

Beach	Year of Past Nest Count	Past Nest Count	2013 Nest Count	Prefecture
Akabane	1992	29	39	Aichi
Atsum	1996	19	50	Aichi
Hiwasa	1979	76	18	Tokushima
Inakahama	1986	540	2504	Kagoshima
Itoman	1992	4	19	Okinawa
Kujukuri	2004	15	39	Chiba
Maehama	1989	611	1637	Okinawa
Minaba Senri	1985	162	236	Wakayama
Miyazaki	1985	607	1143	Miyazaki
Nagahama	1997	106	612	Okinawa
Ohgi & Shimonokae	1995	9	30	Okayama
Okata	1991	19	37	Yamaguchi
Shima Peninsula	2000	25	43	Mie
Shingu	1989	15	15	Fukuoka
Toyohashi	1995	30	20	Aichi

True	False
		Based on the table, exactly two prefectures, based on their total nest counts, did not experience an increase from past estimates to 2013.
		Based on the table, the greatest percentage increase in nest counts from past estimates to 2013 was approximately 600%.
		If the annual percentage rate of increase at Maehama Beach remained constant from 1989 to 2013 and continues at the same rate until 2025, the estimated nest count in 2025 will exceed 2,400.