I02-01

Question

https://gmatclub.com/gmat-focus-tests/resources/import/img/I02-01+.png 
 
The graph shows the trade value of edible fishery products between the United States and various regions, measured in billions of dollars in 2018.

If in 2018, 20% of U.S. exports to Asia were to India, and 40% of U.S. imports from Asia were from India, then the trade deficit with India accounted for approximately  GRAPH_1_PLACEHOLDER  of the U.S. trade deficit with Asia.

The U.S. would have had to  GRAPH_2_PLACEHOLDER  its level of edible fishery exports to eliminate its total trade deficit.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

Drop-down 1: 
 
U.S. exports to Asia were 3 billion, and 20% of that would be 0.6 billion. U.S. imports from Asia were 10 billion, and 40% of that would be 4 billion. The trade deficit with India, therefore, would be 0.6 billion - 4 billion = -3.4 billion, which is approximately 50% of the total deficit with Asia, which is 7 billion.
 
 Drop-down 2: 
 
The total export from the U.S. is approximately  1 + 0.1 + 1 + 3 + 0.1 = 5.2  billion, while the total import is  4.2 + 3.9 + 2.3 + 10 + 0.4 = 20.8  billion. Therefore, the U.S. would have had to increase its level of edible fishery exports fourfold to eliminate the trade deficit.

Correct answer:

Dropdown 1:  "50%"

Dropdown 2:  "increase four times "

Bunuel · Answer

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

zaberfire · Answer

I saw "increase 3 times its level of exports" as Exports + 3*Exports.

Like if you heard "increase once" you'd expect "Something + Something".
Likewise, "Increase twice", you'd expect something has been added twice "Something + 2*Something".

It seems GMAT is consistent in this regard. There are lots of other problems where you have to be careful with whether it is a X multiplier or a (X-1)% increase.

Are you supposed to just guess?

Bunuel · Answer

Increase 3 times means something multiplied by 3. There is no ambiguity in that. I think you are confusing 3 times more and 3 times as many, which also mean the same thing.

Here is my post from another topic addressing this issue:

Agree that it's confusing but check below:

Merriam Webster's  Dictionary of English Usage :

The argument in this case is that times more (or times larger, times stronger, times brighter, etc.) is ambiguous, so that "He has five times more money than you" can be misunderstood as meaning "He has six times as much money as you." It is, in fact, possible to misunderstand times more in this way, but it takes a good deal of effort. If you have $100, five times that is $500, which means that "five times more than $100" can mean (the commentators claim) "$500 more than $100," which equals "$600," which equals "six times as much as $100." The commentators regard this as a serious ambiguity, and they advise you to avoid it by always saying "times as much" instead of "times more." Here again, it seems that they are paying homage to mathematics at the expense of language. The fact is that "five times more" and "five times as much" are idiomatic phrases which have - and are understood to have - exactly the same meaning.

The "ambiguity" of times more is imaginary: in the world of actual speech and writing, the meaning of times more is clear and unequivocal. It is an idiom that has existed in our language for more than four centuries, and there is no real reason to avoid its use.

The "ambiguity" of  times more  is imaginary : in the world of actual speech and writing, the meaning of  times more  is clear and unequivocal. It is an idiom that has existed in our language for more than four centuries, and there is no real reason to avoid its use.

More on this  here .

Also, check the following posts by Ianstewart:

avnssskrishna · Answer

Hi sir, this is my first post or any kind of content here

Just a question: How do we infer/indirectly the graph's value such as 4.2 or 3.9 or etc.
I mean pls correct me if I missed anything, but middle values I can understand. Without minute scaling it's tough to assume it right?

- Sai Krishna A (India)

Bunuel · Answer

You approximate values from the graph based on the available scaling. It may not provide exact values for every point, but close approximations are sufficient to solve such problems.

diogomapereira · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

lasereye21 · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

abhinay1661 · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

rbutori · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

sana912 · Answer

Why are we finding imports/exports and not deficit/imports?

For example if Imports = 4Bn, Exports = 1Bn and Deficit = 3Bn, wouldn't you need just 3Bn to cover the deficit? 3Bn is 3 times more than exports (i.e. deficit/exports not imports/exports)

Bunuel · Answer

In your example, you need 3 billion. But increasing exports from 1 billion to 4 billion (adding 3 billion) means increasing exports 4 times.

ReenaM0 · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

Shiro01 · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

hemanth.addada · Answer

I don’t quite agree with the solution. For 2nd part, Exports ~ 5 Bn, Imports ~20 Bn => Requirement ~15 Bn
Why are we assuming that the demand is increasing here? The demand should be constant, right, i.e., delta change in exports should be (20+5)/2 - 5 = 7.5 -> Both of these should meet midway because once you increase the exports, the imports automatically should decrease, right?

Bunuel · Answer

No, increasing exports doesn't automatically decrease imports. The graph is based on actual trade values, not a fixed-demand model. Imports are given as fixed amounts, so to eliminate the deficit, we assume imports stay constant, and we calculate how much exports alone would need to rise to match total imports. That’s why we don’t "meet midway", we’re not adjusting imports here.

LAVKESH · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

Georgeab10 · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful.

srik410 · Answer

I like the solution - it’s helpful. TLDR
• “increase by a factor of k” / “must scale by a factor of k” → multiply by k (GMAT: same)
• “k times as large as ...” → multiply by k (GMAT: same)
• “increase k %” or “k % larger/greater” → add k % of the original; final = (1 + k %) × original (GMAT: same)
• “A is what percent of B?” → (A ÷ B) × 100 % (GMAT: same)
• “By what factor must A grow to equal B?” → B ÷ A (GMAT: same)

Only real trap:
“k times larger/greater/more than ...”
 – Literal math-purist reading: final = (k + 1) × original
 – GMAT/common usage: final = k × original

I02-01

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