BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Fiction & Non-fiction books

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:18 pm

Fiction & Non-fiction books

by bichoo » Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:37 am
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!
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 8:18 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by vcb » Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:25 am
Well, I think eliminating the options will be a good approach. None of the other options really stick to what is being discussed in the question. A, on the other hand, provides a simple enough conclusion.

For ease, lets convert percents to actual figures. Roughly speaking, the total spending on books (all - Fiction + NonFiction) increased by $34. However, spending on only Fiction books increased only by $16. So, the increase in NonFiction should be more than $34 for the final spending to be $34. Savvy?

Of course, I need to add the disclaimer - The explaination is strictly for the purpose of demonstrating.
[/quote]
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:05 pm

by xyztroy » Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:27 am
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!

I got the answer wrong initially, but I can now figure it...

Lets assume the initial spending on books = $200 ($100 for fictional and $100 for Non Fictional).
34% increase means that total new spending should be = $268
Changed Fictional spending = 116.
Changed spending on non-fictional spending = 268 - 116 = 152.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:18 pm

by bichoo » Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:55 am
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. And $54 > $34


Did I explain this to myself correct? Please correct me if my reasoning is wrong here!
Last edited by bichoo on Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:47 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by sakali » Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:06 am
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!
Good explanation. Initially that was my problem with this question too. One has to assume that there are only two types of books in this world. Only then, this answer makes sense.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1