Critical Reasoning

From 1965 to 1988, spending on food in the United States climbed 46 percent. But over that same period, spending on food to be consumed at home - purchased mainly from supermarkets - grew only 20 percent.
Which of the following statements about the period from 1965 to 1988 in the United States is best supported by the statements above?
(A) Spending on food increased at restaurants and other food retailers that prepare food to be consumed away from home.
(B) Shoppers spent more on certain food products to be consumed at home that are not generally available in supermarkets.
(C) Food prices at supermarkets neither rose nor dropped relative to food prices at other food retailers.
(D There was a decrease in the number of heads households, who tend to spend more than other household members on food consumed away from home.
(E) The number of people who ate at restaurants decreased relative to the number of people who ordered take-out food from restaurants.

IMO (A)

Could you please explain, why B is not correct. Actually I have doubt between A and B.

We are told that spending on food to be consumed at home - purchased mainly from supermarkets - grew only 20 percent. We cannot deduce that spending on food to be consumed at home that is not purchased in supermarkets actually rose.


If a + b has increased by 20% (a- spending on home-consumed food purchased at supermarkets b- spending on home-consumed food not purchased at supermarkets), it may well be that b has actually fallen or remained stable.

kevincanspain wrote:We are told that spending on food to be consumed at home - purchased mainly from supermarkets - grew only 20 percent. We cannot deduce that spending on food to be consumed at home that is not purchased in supermarkets actually rose.


If a + b has increased by 20% (a- spending on home-consumed food purchased at supermarkets b- spending on home-consumed food not purchased at supermarkets), it may well be that b has actually fallen or remained stable.

Going by this logic, we are saying there was 20% growth spending on food to be consumed at home. "Purchased mainly from supermarkets" - tells me that the 20% growth has been from a and b combined.

So, justification for the overall increase of 46% on food spending has to come from choice (A).

Kevin, please let me know if this makes sense.

Now got it, thanks a lot.

neonite wrote:

kevincanspain wrote:We are told that spending on food to be consumed at home - purchased mainly from supermarkets - grew only 20 percent. We cannot deduce that spending on food to be consumed at home that is not purchased in supermarkets actually rose.


If a + b has increased by 20% (a- spending on home-consumed food purchased at supermarkets b- spending on home-consumed food not purchased at supermarkets), it may well be that b has actually fallen or remained stable.

Going by this logic, we are saying there was 20% growth spending on food to be consumed at home. "Purchased mainly from supermarkets" - tells me that the 20% growth has been from a and b combined.

So, justification for the overall increase of 46% on food spending has to come from choice (A).

Kevin, please let me know if this makes sense.

Great!