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

Redeem

consumption of fish and poultry

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:54 am
Followed by:4 members

consumption of fish and poultry

by nidhis.1408 » Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:23 am
In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increased by 4.5 percent, and the total consumption of poultry products increased by 9.0 percent. During this time, the population of Eastland increased by 6 percent, in part due to new arrivals from surrounding areas.

Which of the following, if true, can one infer based on the statements above?
a.For new arrivals to Eastland between 2000 and 2005, fish was less likely to be a major part of families' diet than was poultry.
b.In 2005, the residents of Eastland consumed twice as much poultry as fish.
c.The per capita consumption of poultry in Eastland was higher in 2005 than it was in 2000.
d.Between 2000 and 2005, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents.
e.Between 2000 and 2005, the profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did the profits of wholesale distributors of fish.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:02 pm
Thanked: 62 times
Followed by:6 members

by user123321 » Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:35 am
IMO C

a) we dont know that for sure. what if existing people stopped eating fish and started eating poultry.

b) we cannot infer anything from their amounts.

c) This is true, the per capita consumption of poultry products increased.

d) we cannot infer this.

e) profits is out of problem's scope.

user123321
Just started my preparation :D
Want to do it right the first time.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:54 am
Followed by:4 members

by nidhis.1408 » Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:40 am
i somehow felt D could have been an answer. guess i have a real bad reasoning power! Anyways thanks:)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:49 am
Location: Delhi
Thanked: 6 times

by ranjeet75 » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:39 am
IMO D
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 12:15 am
Location: India
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by [email protected] » Wed Nov 09, 2011 3:16 am
I am stuck betwen C& D

D is more generally represent the trend (The only thing goes against it is the argument compare increase between 2000 & 2005 it doesnt say anything specifically abt in between years so it might happen that in one year the polutry was 0 % of the diet, hence not regular part of diet).

C is specific and true as increase in population is 6 % and consumption of polutry by 9%.

Not very sure please tell OA and explanation
Ashish

If my post helped you- let me know by pushing the thanks button
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:22 am
Thanked: 4 times

by krishnakumar.ks » Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:00 am
nidhis.1408 wrote:In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increased by 4.5 percent, and the total consumption of poultry products increased by 9.0 percent. During this time, the population of Eastland increased by 6 percent, in part due to new arrivals from surrounding areas.

Which of the following, if true, can one infer based on the statements above?
a.For new arrivals to Eastland between 2000 and 2005, fish was less likely to be a major part of families' diet than was poultry.
b.In 2005, the residents of Eastland consumed twice as much poultry as fish.
c.The per capita consumption of poultry in Eastland was higher in 2005 than it was in 2000.
d.Between 2000 and 2005, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents.
e.Between 2000 and 2005, the profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did the profits of wholesale distributors of fish.
C cannot be necessarily true because what was given is the increase in the consumption from 2000 to 2005. This does not mean that the consumption rose in 2005. It could also be true that the consumption was higher in 2004 than in 2005 (and both of them higher than that of 2001) which means that the per capita consumption did not rise in 2005. My point is that we really cannot infer anything from this option. Most of the other options are out of scope. Hence, D can be chosen over other options
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:54 am
Followed by:4 members

by nidhis.1408 » Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:41 am
But i dont think D is the answer. Can somebody please give a confirm and correct answer to this question.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 10:04 am
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:4 members

by thestartupguy » Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:01 pm
IMO:C
nidhis.1408 wrote:In Eastland, from 2000 to 2005, the total consumption of fish increased by 4.5 percent, and the total consumption of poultry products increased by 9.0 percent. During this time, the population of Eastland increased by 6 percent, in part due to new arrivals from surrounding areas.

Which of the following, if true, can one infer based on the statements above?
a.For new arrivals to Eastland between 2000 and 2005, fish was less likely to be a major part of families' diet than was poultry. <may not be true>
b.In 2005, the residents of Eastland consumed twice as much poultry as fish.<may not be true. Say fish consumed in 2000 = 1000, therefore fish consumed in 2005 = 1045. Say poultry consumed = 100, therefore poultry consumed in 2005 = 109. Compare the values. So B is not TRUE>
c.The per capita consumption of poultry in Eastland was higher in 2005 than it was in 2000. <Say, the population = 100 (in the year 2000), it is 106 in 2005. Say, poultry = 100 units (2000), 109 units (2005). We get that 109/106>100/100. This ratio is true for any values of population or poultry. Therefore this is the correct answer>
d.Between 2000 and 2005, both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents. <not necessary>
e.Between 2000 and 2005, the profits of wholesale distributors of poultry products increased at a greater rate than did the profits of wholesale distributors of fish. <irrelevant>
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
Followed by:512 members
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:27 pm
C is the answer.

As explained by both msr4mba and edirik. It is simple math. An increase of 6% in population and 9% in poultry consumption means that on average more poultry is consumed. Mathematical certainty.

D is not the answer. How can we know that "both fish and poultry products were a regular part of the diet of a significant proportion of Eastland residents."? Remember with an inference question you are looking for the answer that Must Be True. We have no idea who consumes fish and poultry - we only know the increase.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1