## PT 17, LR Section 3, Q 24

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
February1088

Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:52 pm

### PT 17, LR Section 3, Q 24

Okay, this question was very frustrating for me. I had no trouble understanding the passage itself. The 3 regions make up the country, and whatever the population of the region is (percentage) out of the total country's population, you get revenues proportionally. Simple concept.

The problem for me was, trying to find out the difference between the answer choices C, D, and E. I picked D, but the answer was E.

Because E/C says increased by a percentage...does it mean increased by the total percentage of the country's population, or increased by the percentage of its OWN region's population?

Lets say region A has 20% population, region B has 50% population, and region C has 30% population.

Lets say region C increased by "smaller percentage than the other regions" Let's pretend region C increased by 1% while the other regions increase by 5%. Does the 1% mean 1% of the 30% population that region C has, OR does it mean 1% outta the entire population of the country?

Super confused with percentage, someone help me out please

510Chicken

Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:50 pm

### Re: PT 17, LR Section 3, Q 24

I couldn't find that PT, so maybe I'm just confused, but...

Pretty sure it has to be 1% of the 30%. They cannot ALL increase as a percentage of the total (25 + 55 + 31 = 111% = Fail).

If C is growing at a slower rate, however, that means that its overall share of the total population is decreasing. Which sounds kind of like the answer to an LR question.

Kurst

Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:33 pm

### Re: PT 17, LR Section 3, Q 24

510Chicken is correct. Consider answer choice (C):

The populations of Mitro and Guadar each increased by a percentage that exceeded the percentage by which the population of Korva increased.

Percentage here applies to the population of each region, not to the total population of Ditrama. If Mitro had 100 residents, for example, and Mitro's population increased by 10%, Mitro would have 110 residents.

As for why (C) and (D) are incorrect, recall that Korva's share of the revenue declined even though its population increased. From this you know that (1) the total population of Ditrama increased more than Korva's population increased; (2) the percentage of Ditrama's population residing in Korva declined; (3) the percentage of Ditrama's population residing in at least one of the other regions increased.

(C) could be true, but it is not the case that it must be true: Mitro's population could have actually declined, for example, while Guadar's population increased tenfold.

Code: Select all

`Korva        Mitro          Guadar100 (33.3%)  100 (33.3%)    100 (33.3%)200 (16%)    50 (4%)        1000 (80%)`

The same line of reasoning shows that (D) need not be true.