- Posts: 160
- Joined: Jul 09, 2015
- Mon Sep 14, 2015 6:09 pm
#19815
I have given these problems a 24 hour wait period as I have started them few days ago, and still feel a bit confused. They are both numbers and percentages problems, and were on the same page so I thought to put them together:
1)page 533 #1 "The economists who claim that consumer price increases have averaged lessthan 3 %..."
So I got the right answer to this problem by process of elimination. However, I am still not sure I understand the enitre "averages" explanation very well in the answer key. Is it because the politician leaves out other consumer goods also included within this average for consumer price increases of 3 percent, that could have equaled a value of say 1 percent increase or even a negative percent increase, allowing the average to eventually be 3 percent, even with all the high numbers stated in the stimulus? Which is why the items listed in the stimulus are thus unrepresentative.
example: gasoline percent increase + auto percent increase + newspaper percent increase ....+unstated item with only 1 percent increase + another unstated item with negative percent increase....etc)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 3%
x items
And so those left out items would help bring the average down to 3 percent?
Let me know if I am on the right track=)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) "Ditrama is a federation made up of three autonomous regions.."
This was a very tough problem, my head is still spinning.
Here is how I did the problem:
A) I eliminated A & D since they discussed numerical information and the stimulus was about percentages, is that okay so far?
And B of course is impossible to know, so I eliminated it.
So now I am down between C and E.
When I make charts I like to use multiples of 100 to make understanding percentages easier.
The before:
population/% revenue
100 total =
K 60/60%
M 20/20%
G 20/20%
After:
1000 total =
K 300/30 %
M 600/30 %
G 100/10%
B) So based on this chart we see the population of K increase from 60 to 300, while its revenue allocation goes down because the pie gets bigger (was my chart here okay?).
C) Abstractly speaking, however, how could I quickly determine that it is not neccessary for both of the populations to have increased by a greater percentage than Korva? Otherwise I would have to do percentage information for each one (i.e.(300-60)/60 +(600-20)/20 + (100-20/20), as well as guess and check methods on the test). In addition to the fact that this chart itself is already quite time consuming to make.
(Is it because Korva can't grow so much compared to at least one other percentage wise if its revenue allocation must be smaller than before, and so to comprise the 1000 new total one of the other two areas must grow to a really large percentage (i.e. from 20 to 600= 2900% growth), but not necc both?)
D) And if we look at the problem more abstractly in general, would it be something along the lines of "if you grow in size, but your market share gets smaller (in this case the revenue allocation got smaller), then it must be because the pie is growing"?
(Essentially, I am looking for a fast way to look at this problem and move on quickly rather than going through charts and math calculations, but rather understand it more intuitively)
And I guess by looking at the chart in the LR bible answer key the most the 10 figure population for Korva can grow to is 32, making 32% which is just less than 33%. And then no matter how we split up the other two options, either they will both be greater, or one will be smaller or equal to 32 and the third will be greater, but again intuitively seeing it all without a chart would be better!
Best,
Kristina
1)page 533 #1 "The economists who claim that consumer price increases have averaged lessthan 3 %..."
So I got the right answer to this problem by process of elimination. However, I am still not sure I understand the enitre "averages" explanation very well in the answer key. Is it because the politician leaves out other consumer goods also included within this average for consumer price increases of 3 percent, that could have equaled a value of say 1 percent increase or even a negative percent increase, allowing the average to eventually be 3 percent, even with all the high numbers stated in the stimulus? Which is why the items listed in the stimulus are thus unrepresentative.
example: gasoline percent increase + auto percent increase + newspaper percent increase ....+unstated item with only 1 percent increase + another unstated item with negative percent increase....etc)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------= 3%
x items
And so those left out items would help bring the average down to 3 percent?
Let me know if I am on the right track=)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) "Ditrama is a federation made up of three autonomous regions.."
This was a very tough problem, my head is still spinning.
Here is how I did the problem:
A) I eliminated A & D since they discussed numerical information and the stimulus was about percentages, is that okay so far?
And B of course is impossible to know, so I eliminated it.
So now I am down between C and E.
When I make charts I like to use multiples of 100 to make understanding percentages easier.
The before:
population/% revenue
100 total =
K 60/60%
M 20/20%
G 20/20%
After:
1000 total =
K 300/30 %
M 600/30 %
G 100/10%
B) So based on this chart we see the population of K increase from 60 to 300, while its revenue allocation goes down because the pie gets bigger (was my chart here okay?).
C) Abstractly speaking, however, how could I quickly determine that it is not neccessary for both of the populations to have increased by a greater percentage than Korva? Otherwise I would have to do percentage information for each one (i.e.(300-60)/60 +(600-20)/20 + (100-20/20), as well as guess and check methods on the test). In addition to the fact that this chart itself is already quite time consuming to make.
(Is it because Korva can't grow so much compared to at least one other percentage wise if its revenue allocation must be smaller than before, and so to comprise the 1000 new total one of the other two areas must grow to a really large percentage (i.e. from 20 to 600= 2900% growth), but not necc both?)
D) And if we look at the problem more abstractly in general, would it be something along the lines of "if you grow in size, but your market share gets smaller (in this case the revenue allocation got smaller), then it must be because the pie is growing"?
(Essentially, I am looking for a fast way to look at this problem and move on quickly rather than going through charts and math calculations, but rather understand it more intuitively)
And I guess by looking at the chart in the LR bible answer key the most the 10 figure population for Korva can grow to is 32, making 32% which is just less than 33%. And then no matter how we split up the other two options, either they will both be greater, or one will be smaller or equal to 32 and the third will be greater, but again intuitively seeing it all without a chart would be better!
Best,
Kristina
