From 1980 to 1989, total consumption of fish in the country of Jurania increased by 4.5 percent, and total consumption...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
From 1980 to 1989, total consumption of fish in the country of Jurania increased by 4.5 percent, and total consumption of poultry products there increased by 9.0 percent. During the same period, the population of Jurania increased by 6 percent, in part due to immigration to Jurania from other countries in the region.
If the statements above are true, which of the following must also be true on the basis of them?
Passage Visualization
| Passage Statement | Visualization and Linkage |
|---|---|
| From 1980 to 1989, total consumption of fish in the country of Jurania increased by \(4.5\%\) | Establishes: Fish consumption growth rate Example: If total fish consumption was 1,000,000 tons in 1980 → 1,045,000 tons in 1989 Key Pattern: Fish consumption grew slower than population
|
| Total consumption of poultry products there increased by \(9.0\%\) | Establishes: Poultry consumption growth rate Example: If total poultry consumption was 2,000,000 tons in 1980 → 2,180,000 tons in 1989 Key Pattern: Poultry consumption grew faster than population
|
| During the same period, the population of Jurania increased by \(6\%\), in part due to immigration to Jurania from other countries in the region | Establishes: Population growth benchmark Example: If population was 10,000,000 in 1980 → 10,600,000 in 1989 Critical Benchmark: \(6\%\) population growth creates the comparison standard
|
| Overall Implication | Core Pattern Revealed: Different consumption behaviors emerge when comparing total consumption growth to population growth Mathematical Certainty:
The immigration detail confirms population growth but doesn't affect the mathematical relationships |
Valid Inferences
Inference: The average Juranian consumed less fish per person in 1989 than in 1980, while consuming more poultry products per person.
Supporting Logic: Since total fish consumption increased by only \(4.5\%\) while population increased by \(6\%\), the per capita fish consumption necessarily decreased. Since total poultry consumption increased by \(9\%\) while population increased by only \(6\%\), the per capita poultry consumption necessarily increased. These mathematical relationships hold regardless of the specific reasons for population or consumption changes.
Clarification Note: This inference focuses on per capita consumption changes, which can be determined mathematically from the given percentages. The passage does not support inferences about why these consumption patterns changed or about absolute consumption levels.
This choice makes claims about profits of wholesale distributors that we cannot determine from the passage. We only know consumption data, not profit margins, operational costs, or distribution economics. Higher consumption doesn't automatically translate to higher profits - distributors could face increased costs, different markup structures, or varying market competition. The passage gives us no information to support any conclusions about profit comparisons.
This choice speculates about the dietary preferences of immigrants specifically. While we know immigration contributed to population growth, we have no data about what immigrants ate versus existing residents. The consumption changes we observe could be due to changing preferences among all residents, economic factors, availability, or numerous other reasons unrelated to immigrant dietary patterns.
This choice makes a claim about absolute consumption ratios in 1989. We only know the growth rates (\(4.5\%\) for fish, \(9\%\) for poultry) but not the starting baseline amounts in 1980. If fish consumption started much higher than poultry in 1980, fish could still be consumed more than poultry in 1989 despite growing more slowly. Without baseline data, we cannot determine the actual consumption ratio.
This choice claims that both fish and poultry were regular parts of diet for a significant proportion of the population. The passage only gives us total consumption figures, not distribution patterns across the population. A small segment could be consuming large amounts while others consume little to none. We cannot determine dietary regularity or population distribution from aggregate consumption data.
This choice must be true based on mathematical certainty. When total fish consumption increases by \(4.5\%\) but population increases by \(6\%\), the per capita consumption necessarily decreases. Think of it this way: if \(100\) people shared \(1000\) units of fish in 1980, that's \(10\) units per person. By 1989, there are \(106\) people sharing \(1045\) units of fish, which equals approximately \(9.86\) units per person - a clear decrease in per capita consumption.