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

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

(A) Spending on nonfiction books increased by more than 34 percent

(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.


Answer is A but I don't understand why! Please help! Thanks!

bichoo wrote:Thanks for your replies. I think I get it now. I didn't view the question properly.

My wrong method of interpreting the problem: Well if out of the 34% total increase in spending, 16% were fiction, then the increase in nonfiction should be 34-16 = 18%. But then why does answer A say more than 34%? I don't get it.

The correct way of interpreting the question: There are only 2 book types, fiction and nonfiction. If 34% is the TOTAL increase in spending but only 16% were fiction books, well then you need to spend more than 34% on nonfiction books to get the TOTAL (average) of 34% increase.

If you look at it in dollars like you did vcb, it makes sense. In dollars, you can view it as doing an average of the 2 to get a final of $34. In vcb's example, this would be viewed as spending $16 on fiction books and $52 on nonfiction books to get an average of $34.


Did I explain this to myself correct? Please correct me if my reasoning is wrong here!