In the state of Michigan, from 1980 to 1989, total spending on books

Question

In the state of Michigan, from 1980 to 1989, total spending on books purchased from all sources increased by 34%. But during the same period, spending on fiction books, most of which were purchased from bookstores selling only new books, grew just 16%.

Which of the following statements about the period from 1980 to 1989 is best supported by the statements above?

A. Spending on nonfiction books increased by more than 34%.

B. Shoppers were more likely to buy fiction books when they went to a bookstore than they were to buy nonfiction.

C. The prices of books purchased at bookstores are higher than those of books purchased elsewhere.

D. Individual spending on books increased, while institutional spending declined.

E. The number of people who bought books from secondhand bookstores increased during this period.

ruchik · Answer

We are been told that overall spending increased by 34% but increase in spending on non fictional increased only by 16%. The phrase "most
of which were purchased from bookstores selling only new books" is just to create confusion. 
Analyse the answer choices now given the above info.
All other answer choice except for A will seem out of context for the question hence A.

Please give kudos if you like the explanation.

ruchik · Answer

Bunuel : I think there is an issue with the indentation of the question after ",most", it should be a continuous statement rather than a new line.

Bunuel · Answer

___________________
Yes. Edited. Thank you.

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

A

If spending on all books from all sources grew by 34% but spending on fiction books grew only 16%, then spending on other types of books must also have increased. In fact, since all books are either fiction or nonfiction, it must be the case that spending on nonfiction books grew more than 34%. So (A) must be true based on the information in the stimulus.

(C), (D), and (E) introduce the ideas of purchase price, source of spending, and location of purchase. We know only that some books were purchased at bookstores; we can infer nothing about where the rest of the books were purchased, who bought them, or how much the books cost (B) draws the false conclusion that because fiction books were largely bought in bookstores, nonfiction books must not have been. In fact, there's no discussion about where nonfiction books were bought.

vinayakvaish · Answer

Consider this:

Spending from all sources increased implies a cumulative increase not an individual increase so if increase in sales of fiction books declined from one source which accounts for more than 50% sales (I guess thats what most means) then another source can make up with a higher percentage increase to drive up the spending percentage. This in no manner implies that sales for other books must increase.

sales from books stores that account for 75% sales= 3/4* 16= 12
sales from other sources accounting for 25% sales= 1/4*100= 25

Consider sales from other sources doubled. Net increase in sales for fiction is then 37%

Here sales of non fiction books should actually drop in percentage. We can argue this both ways

shubhim20 · Answer

Bunuel  please elaborate why option C and E is wrong?

In the state of Michigan, from 1980 to 1989, total spending on books

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

In the state of Michigan, from 1980 to 1989, total spending on books

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