Last visit was: 07 Jun 2026, 22:49 It is currently 07 Jun 2026, 22:49
Home
Messages
MBA Fair
Tests
Schools
Events
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
805+ (Hard)|   Math Related|   Tables|      
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 07 Jun 2026
Posts: 111,137
Own Kudos:
819,441
 [40]
Given Kudos: 106,717
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: 111,137
Kudos: 819,441
 [40]
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanes 28 Aug 2020, 23:48
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
35
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide Answer
Hide
Show
History
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
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

34% (03:11) correct 66% (03:34) wrong based on 578 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanese beaches, showing specific counts from a past year and from 2013.

BeachYear of Past Nest CountPast Nest Count2013 Nest CountPrefecture
Akabane19922939Aichi
Atsum19961950Aichi
Hiwasa19797618Tokushima
Inakahama19865402504Kagoshima
Itoman1992419Okinawa
Kujukuri20041539Chiba
Maehama19896111637Okinawa
Minaba Senri1985162236Wakayama
Miyazaki19856071143Miyazaki
Nagahama1997106612Okinawa
Ohgi & Shimonokae1995930Okayama
Okata19911937Yamaguchi
Shima Peninsula20002543Mie
Shingu19891515Fukuoka
Toyohashi19953020Aichi

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.
True False Statement
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.
Submit Answer
Start the Timer above, select the radio buttons, and click "Submit" to add this question to your Error log.
ShowHide Answer
Official 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
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 07 Jun 2026
Posts: 111,137
Own Kudos:
819,441
 [2]
Given Kudos: 106,717
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: 111,137
Kudos: 819,441
 [2]
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanes 26 Nov 2024, 06:19
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanese beaches, showing specific counts from a past year and from 2013.

BeachYear of Past Nest CountPast Nest Count2013 Nest CountPrefecture
Akabane19922939Aichi
Atsum19961950Aichi
Hiwasa19797618Tokushima
Inakahama19865402504Kagoshima
Itoman1992419Okinawa
Kujukuri20041539Chiba
Maehama19896111637Okinawa
Minaba Senri1985162236Wakayama
Miyazaki19856071143Miyazaki
Nagahama1997106612Okinawa
Ohgi & Shimonokae1995930Okayama
Okata19911937Yamaguchi
Shima Peninsula20002543Mie
Shingu19891515Fukuoka
Toyohashi19953020Aichi

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.
Show more

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.

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 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"
User avatar
NishkarshS
User avatar
Joined: 08 Sep 2024
Last visit: 09 Jan 2025
Posts: 1
Own Kudos:
2
 [2]
Posts: 1
Kudos: 2
 [2]
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanes 26 Nov 2024, 10:56
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Doesn't Toyohashi also reduce, from 30 to 20? Making the answer to this statement false?
Bunuel
Bunuel
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanese beaches, showing specific counts from a past year and from 2013.

BeachYear of Past Nest CountPast Nest Count2013 Nest CountPrefecture
Akabane19922939Aichi
Atsum19961950Aichi
Hiwasa19797618Tokushima
Inakahama19865402504Kagoshima
Itoman1992419Okinawa
Kujukuri20041539Chiba
Maehama19896111637Okinawa
Minaba Senri1985162236Wakayama
Miyazaki19856071143Miyazaki
Nagahama1997106612Okinawa
Ohgi & Shimonokae1995930Okayama
Okata19911937Yamaguchi
Shima Peninsula20002543Mie
Shingu19891515Fukuoka
Toyohashi19953020Aichi

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.

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.

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 did not experience an increase in nest counts from the past estimates to 2013. "True"

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

If the annual 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"
Show more
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 07 Jun 2026
Posts: 111,137
Own Kudos:
819,441
Given Kudos: 106,717
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: 111,137
Kudos: 819,441
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanes 26 Nov 2024, 11:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
NishkarshS
Doesn't Toyohashi also reduce, from 30 to 20? Making the answer to this statement false?
Bunuel
Bunuel
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanese beaches, showing specific counts from a past year and from 2013.

BeachYear of Past Nest CountPast Nest Count2013 Nest CountPrefecture
Akabane19922939Aichi
Atsum19961950Aichi
Hiwasa19797618Tokushima
Inakahama19865402504Kagoshima
Itoman1992419Okinawa
Kujukuri20041539Chiba
Maehama19896111637Okinawa
Minaba Senri1985162236Wakayama
Miyazaki19856071143Miyazaki
Nagahama1997106612Okinawa
Ohgi & Shimonokae1995930Okayama
Okata19911937Yamaguchi
Shima Peninsula20002543Mie
Shingu19891515Fukuoka
Toyohashi19953020Aichi

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.

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.

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 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"
Show more

Check the highlighted part. 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"
User avatar
Bismuth83
User avatar
DI Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Sep 2024
Last visit: 01 Aug 2025
Posts: 712
Own Kudos:
3,318
Given Kudos: 441
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 712
Kudos: 3,318
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanes 26 Nov 2024, 11:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
1. Based on the table, exactly two prefectures did not experience an increase in nest counts from the past estimates to 2013. Here you have to be careful with prefectures, for example Aishi experienced a decrease at Toyohashi but it doesn't mean it didn't experience an increase (Akabane). Shingu and Hiwasa are the only beaches that don't increase (other than Toyohashi) and they belong to prefectures which only include them. So, this statement is true.

2. Based on the table, the greatest percentage increase in nest counts from past estimates to 2013 was approximately 600%. Let's look at the beaches with a more than 3x increase:

  • Inakahama. 540 to 2504 means a \(100 * \frac{2504 - 540}{540} \approx 364\%\) increase.
  • Ohgi & Shimonokae. 9 to 30 means a \(100 * \frac{30 - 9}{9} \approx 233\%\) increase.
  • Nagahama. 106 to 612 means a \(100 * \frac{612 - 106}{106} \approx 477\%\) increase.
  • Itoman. 4 to 19 means a \(100 * \frac{19 - 4}{4} = 375\%\) increase.

The largest increase (477%) is less than 600%, so, this statement is false.

3. If the annual 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. From 1989 to 2013 Maehama Beach went from 611 to 1637 over 24 years, which is an increase in \(\frac{1637}{611} \approx 2.68\) times or \(\sqrt[24]{2.68}\) times per year on average. If the annual rate stayed the same until 2025, then the nest count will increase by \((\sqrt[24]{2.68})^{12} = \sqrt{2.68} \approx 1.64\) times or from 1637 to \(1637 * 1.64 \approx 2685\), which is more than 2400. So, the statement is true.
User avatar
chai9944
User avatar
Joined: 10 Jul 2023
Last visit: 25 Dec 2025
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 14
GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q82 V78 DI78
GMAT Focus 1: 595 Q82 V78 DI78
Posts: 7
Kudos: 1
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanes 16 Dec 2024, 23:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In the Statement 3, the nest count was 1637 in 2013, and 611 in 1989, which is an increase of 1026 in 24 years. And, it is 12 years from 2013 to 2025, which means, at the same rate, the nest count should have been half of what it was during 1989-2013, that is 1026/2 = 513, and 1637+513, we will get 2150, and it is <2400.
User avatar
Bismuth83
User avatar
DI Forum Moderator
Joined: 15 Sep 2024
Last visit: 01 Aug 2025
Posts: 712
Own Kudos:
3,318
Given Kudos: 441
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 712
Kudos: 3,318
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanes 17 Dec 2024, 15:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I think you made the mistake of using addition for the rate. Instead the annual rate is percent increase, for example: a 2% annual increase to 1000 is equal to 1000 * 1.02, and over 10 years it's \(1000 * (1.02)^{10}\).
chai9944
In the Statement 3, the nest count was 1637 in 2013, and 611 in 1989, which is an increase of 1026 in 24 years. And, it is 12 years from 2013 to 2025, which means, at the same rate, the nest count should have been half of what it was during 1989-2013, that is 1026/2 = 513, and 1637+513, we will get 2150, and it is <2400.
Show more
User avatar
Nivev
User avatar
Joined: 07 Aug 2024
Last visit: 22 Feb 2025
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 41
Posts: 7
Kudos: 1
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanes 20 Jan 2025, 13:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Bunuel
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanese beaches, showing specific counts from a past year and from 2013.

BeachYear of Past Nest CountPast Nest Count2013 Nest CountPrefecture
Akabane19922939Aichi
Atsum19961950Aichi
Hiwasa19797618Tokushima
Inakahama19865402504Kagoshima
Itoman1992419Okinawa
Kujukuri20041539Chiba
Maehama19896111637Okinawa
Minaba Senri1985162236Wakayama
Miyazaki19856071143Miyazaki
Nagahama1997106612Okinawa
Ohgi & Shimonokae1995930Okayama
Okata19911937Yamaguchi
Shima Peninsula20002543Mie
Shingu19891515Fukuoka
Toyohashi19953020Aichi

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.

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.

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 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"
Show more
But in the table there are three prefectures as such. Aichi is also a prefecture. Two of them gets decreased Hiwasa's Tokushima (76 to 18) and Toyohashi's Aichi (30 to 20) and one remains the same, Shingu's Fukuoka at 15. What am I missing? I am sure I have taken these from only prefectures.
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 07 Jun 2026
Posts: 111,137
Own Kudos:
819,441
 [1]
Given Kudos: 106,717
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: 111,137
Kudos: 819,441
 [1]
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanes 20 Jan 2025, 13:14
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Nivev
Bunuel
Bunuel
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanese beaches, showing specific counts from a past year and from 2013.

BeachYear of Past Nest CountPast Nest Count2013 Nest CountPrefecture
Akabane19922939Aichi
Atsum19961950Aichi
Hiwasa19797618Tokushima
Inakahama19865402504Kagoshima
Itoman1992419Okinawa
Kujukuri20041539Chiba
Maehama19896111637Okinawa
Minaba Senri1985162236Wakayama
Miyazaki19856071143Miyazaki
Nagahama1997106612Okinawa
Ohgi & Shimonokae1995930Okayama
Okata19911937Yamaguchi
Shima Peninsula20002543Mie
Shingu19891515Fukuoka
Toyohashi19953020Aichi

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.

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.

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 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"
But in the table there are three prefectures as such. Aichi is also a prefecture. Two of them gets decreased Hiwasa's Tokushima (76 to 18) and Toyohashi's Aichi (30 to 20) and one remains the same, Shingu's Fukuoka at 15. What am I missing? I am sure I have taken these from only prefectures.
Show more

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"

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.
User avatar
agrasan
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Last visit: 01 Jun 2026
Posts: 691
Own Kudos:
180
Given Kudos: 6,706
Location: India
Products:
Forum Quiz
Posts: 691
Kudos: 180
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanes 30 Mar 2026, 23:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Bunuel

In statement-3, to ease the calculation, can we also go ahead with the average rate method instead of compounding?
I wanted to check is it always safe to assume that question asks for compounded rate?

24 year (1989-2013) average annual rate = 100*((1637/611) - 1)/24 = ~7%
2013-2025 average rate = 7*12 = ~84%

2013 value (1637) will become ~3000 which is more than 2400

Bunuel


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.

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 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"
Show more
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 07 Jun 2026
Posts: 5,670
Own Kudos:
33,508
 [1]
Given Kudos: 707
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,670
Kudos: 33,508
 [1]
The table below provides data on turtle nest counts at various Japanes 01 Apr 2026, 02:24
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi agrasan,

Great question! Let me address both parts — whether the average rate method works here, and whether it's always safe.

First, what the question actually means: When it says 'the annual percentage rate of increase remained constant,' that is GMAT-speak for compound growth — the same percentage applied each year to the growing base. So yes, the intended approach is compounding.

Here's the elegant compound method:
- Growth factor over 24 years (1989-2013): 1637/611 ≈ 2.678
- Since 2013-2025 is exactly 12 years = half of 24 years, the growth factor for the next 12 years is simply the square root: √2.678 ≈ 1.636
- 2025 estimate: 1637 × 1.636 ≈ 2,678 → exceeds 2,400 ✓

Now, your simple average method:
- You got ~7% per year, then applied 7% × 12 = 84%, giving ~3,000.
- The true compound rate is only about 4.1% per year (much lower than 7%).
- Your method overestimates because you're treating compound growth as linear. The simple average rate is always higher than the compound rate for the same total growth.

In THIS problem, both methods say 'exceeds 2,400,' so you got the right answer. But here's the danger: if the threshold were, say, 2,700, your method would say True (~3,000 > 2,700) while the correct compound method would say False (~2,678 < 2,700). So no, it is NOT always safe to use the average rate method.

Key Insight: On the GMAT, the compound approach has a beautiful shortcut here. Since 12 is half of 24, you just need the square root of the total growth factor. No need to find the annual rate at all!

Answer: True, False, True
Moderators:
Bunuel
Math Expert
111137 posts
Gmat860sanskar
343 posts