Thread: CR: Fiction books

Quote: Originally Posted by snv85 Yep! I also do not agree with the OA ..for that matter I don not find any of the options so approproate ....i must be missing sth here.. Though nverma, could u pls tell the source of this question... Thanks! its KAPLAN

Quote: Originally Posted by nverma In the state of michigan, from 1980 to 1989, total spending on books purchased from all the sources increased by 34%. But during the same period, spending on fiction books, most of which were purchased from bookstores selling only new books, grew by 16 %. Which of the following statements about the period mentioned is best supported by the statements above? a) Spending on non-fiction books increased by 34%...

I dont agree with E How can we say that the number increased from second hand stores. This is only mentioned about the Fiction books, we dont have any information about the Non-fiction books. It is possible that fictional books purchased from book store were less as compared to those purchased from second hand store but we cant say the same for the Non fictional books. confused... please post the explanation with the OA ?

I agree with arindambanerji.........none of the choice looks proper...? if anything misquoted....?

Passage says nothing abt "the number of people" spending on books. But (E) talks abt no. of Earthlings. e)The number of people who bought books from secondhand bookstores increased during this period. So I dont agree with "E" as well.

OA is A. B. Out of scope- talks abt books whereas the question is focused on spending. C. Out of scope- talks abt prices whereas the question is focused on spending. D. Out of scope E. Out of scope- there is no mention of people in the question, it only mentions spending

How it it A? You cannot assume that if you don't purchase fiction, you purchase non-fiction? There could be another genre. Where did this come from? Just curious?

IMO A This is an inference question and not resolve the paradox question as replied eariler. Books are here divided in two groups: fiction and not fiction Argument says that total spending on books incresed by 34%, while spending on fiction books increased by only 16%. From this it follows 34% increase in spending on all books is more contributed by non fiction books. My remark on answer choice A is that it says that spending on non fiction...

Quote: Originally Posted by nverma Hi Finesa17 Can u help me understand, how you concluded that " here books are divided in two categories ". Yep! I also do not agree with the OA ..for that matter I don not find any of the options so approproate ....i must be missing sth here.. Though nverma, could u pls tell the source of this question... Thanks!

My choice is for E, can some GMAT guru take a look?