-
crackgmat007
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 882
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:57 pm•Followed by: 1 member
- Thanked: 15 times
- GMAT Score:690
BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
Farmers
Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning |
IMO E
Proportion has increased from 68% to 72%....
So let us consider the total population in 1850 was 100...so 68 farmers were and 32 was general population...
In the next 30 years population became 200...we know farmers are 72%....which means...in 1880...144 farmers were there...and balance population is 56...so the rate at which the no. of farmers have increased is greater than the rate at which general population increased....which direclty contradicts the stimulus....
If we consider that in the next 30 years population decrease ...for example population became 50...so 72% of 50 is 36...so the no. of farmers have decreased...this again contradicts...
If you consider the population constant...so no. of farmers shall be 72....and and balance population shall be 36..that means the balance population has decreased...this again contradicts....
Proportion has increased from 68% to 72%....
So let us consider the total population in 1850 was 100...so 68 farmers were and 32 was general population...
In the next 30 years population became 200...we know farmers are 72%....which means...in 1880...144 farmers were there...and balance population is 56...so the rate at which the no. of farmers have increased is greater than the rate at which general population increased....which direclty contradicts the stimulus....
If we consider that in the next 30 years population decrease ...for example population became 50...so 72% of 50 is 36...so the no. of farmers have decreased...this again contradicts...
If you consider the population constant...so no. of farmers shall be 72....and and balance population shall be 36..that means the balance population has decreased...this again contradicts....
