Fiction books

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...

maihuna wrote: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...

Actually, kaplan is not kyaplan. Instead, kaplan is kaplan: the world leader in test prep, and in existence since the inception of standardized testing. In business, firm size is the primary determinant of firm value. Because it is the biggest company, Kaplan is able to devote the most resources to research and development.

And more r and d dollars means a lot of full-time smart people studying the test and devising standard procedures and protocols that the test--because of its form--necessarily responds to.

Even the test-maker mis-designs questions at times--this is why they run them experimentally. And the need to ensure well-designed questions, is the main reason the test costs so much to take. So, if even the test-maker mis-designs questions, what can we say about small test prep companies with no r and d department?

Regarding this question, I will check with the curriculum design team.

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!

gmatmachoman wrote: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)

What's the exact source of the question? Retail book? Online quiz? Q-Bank? CAT? (If you tell me exactly where it's from, I can look it up and, if it's a mistake in the original, get it fixed.)

Are you sure that (a) is transcribed correctly? I'm sure that it should read:

"Spending on non-fiction books increased by more than 34%."

There's at least one transcription error ("34% percent" is redundant), so I'm not sure if it's an omission in the original question or with this particular copy.

punitkaur wrote: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!

No I did not mean it is correct, some modifiers like more than or similar should have qualified 34%.

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...

brick2009 wrote: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...

E is definitely not the correct choice.

Even on inference questions that ask us for the choice "best supported" by the statements above, the correct answer will be something that must be true based on the stimulus.

Does it have to be true that the number of people who bought books from secondhand stores increased? Nope, that's just one possible explanation for what happened. Here are a few other "could be true"s:

F) the same number of people bought books from secondhand stores, they just each bought a lot more books.

G) Spending on fiction books rose at stores selling new books, as did spending on non-fiction books.

H) the same number of people bought books from secondhand stores, they just bought more expensive books.

Only A (properly worded) would be a MUST be true; if total spending on books rose by 34%, and one of the two categories of books (fiction) grew by less than 34%, then the other of the two categories (non-fiction) must have increased by more than 34%.

Again, if anyone knows the exact source of the question, I can check the original and see exactly what the issue is.