its an worse among worst...but technically ok sort of, what all it says is that, total sell grew 34% one component 16% so another one 34%...yes it should have some words like at least or more than..sort pf...but kaplan is kyaplan...

In the state of michigan, from 1980 to 1989, total spending on books purchased from all the 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 by 16 %.

Which of the following statements about the period mentioned is best supported by the statements above?

a) Spending on non-fiction books increased by 34% percent.
b) Shoppers were more likely to buy fiction books when they went to a bookstore than they were to buy non-fiction.
c) The prices of books purchased at book-stores are higher than those of books purchased elsewhere
d) Individual spending on the books increased, while inistitutional spending decreased.
e)The number of people who bought books from secondhand bookstores increased during this period.

Source : Kaplan
OA: A..( I am not convinced with the wording of A)

Maihuna, how can u say that if one increased by 16%, other increased by 34%?

I know it may be some math, but even after doing the math i cant get the 34% figure!

Pls explain, even if the choice is worst, as you may think, how did you arrive at that choice?

I am starting to doubt my quant skills now!!

Thanks!

OA is wrong.. i remember doing this in the kaplan book.. and it is definitely not A


even logically speaking A cant be true.. plzzzz check ur OA

. i think it was E


Conclusion is: # ppl buying books from stores that sold new books was up by 16%

The initial premises is : Books purchased at all sources increased by 34%

A: talks abt non-fication book.. not sources

E: talks abt sources.... also gives a reason as to why NEW was only 16%...


hope that helps...