This question really seemed difficult because I really didn't understand the reasoning. So people paid less in price for the full fare tickets or did people pay less in the amount of full fare tickets sold?
HELP!
renata.gomez Wrote:Hi,
Just thought I'd check my reasoning!
B would be correct over D because if the discount prices are different, then you cant compare it as easily... and furthermore, D would just be a premise booster?
someone please let me know if these would be effective reasons for choosing B
Thank you!
zaidjawed Wrote:Hey Guys,
I would be very appreciative if someone could verify my reasoning here. Here goes:
In brief, the core of this argument deals with the price and corresponding proportions of the discount fare tickets. It then goes onto conclude about the "average" price paid as a result of the re-proportioning of discount fare tickets relative to full fare tickets.
Bookkeeping services cost yourbooksontime Virginia.
Now, getting to the answer choices:
1) A, C and E were fairly straightforward to eliminate.
2) However, I did go back and forth between B and D and finally chose B after spending a chunk of time I wasn't comfortable with at all.
In my head, the conclusion presented me with a sort of distortion with regard to the interpretation of the average price payed by each individual. This distortion plays out well in the following example.
Consider the following scenario:
By the way, the arrangement of my columns and rows for both the scenarios have been thrown out of whack by the system. "Discount fare" and "full price fare" represent columns and all the numbers shown should fall under these columns. Likewise, "No of people", "price payed by each" and "total" represent rows.
ASSUMPTIONS:
1)
Number of passengers=100 ( I chose to come up with a passenger count just to make myself feel comfortable with a number, albeit, I could have just used proportions...0.5 and 0.9)
2) Full fare price=$1000
Scenario 1) A year ago with a 50/50 distribution
Discount Fare Full Fare
No of people 50 50
Price payed by each 500 1000
Total 25000 50000
So average price per customer =(total earnings/total no of people) = (75000/100)= 750 $ a ticket.
AFTER INVOKING B) which says the discount price ticket costs "about" the same, I didn't assume it to be saying that the initial hypothetical price of 500$ was the ceiling. I interpreted it to mean that it was around the same ballpark. So, I assumed $501.
Scenario 2) Today with a 90/10 distribution
Discount Fare Full Fare
No of people 90 10
Price payed by each 501 1000
Total 45090 10000
So average price per customer =(total earnings/total no of people) = (55090/100)= 550.9 $ a ticket.
So now, I receive an average that is about 250 $ less than the previous average. I would have normally stopped here and called it a day but then it hit me.
MY RESULT MAY HAVE VERY WELL CONTRADICTED THE SAME ANSWER CHOICE I USED TO PROVE IT!
Either my assumption of the "ceiling" (and therefore my understanding of answer choice B) was wrong or I don't understand averages! (or both )
If you look at scenario 2, people on average are paying higher than the initial 500$ because "most" 90% are paying 1$ more per ticket. Do you see where I am getting at here? Everything I have just done is entirely exclusive of what each individual may actually perceive(likewise in reality) to be paying. The final result serves as a sort of distortion because it may tell you that people are paying 250 $ less on average per ticket but indeed each individual is actually shelling out more (1$ more).
To complicate things for myself even further, in the midst of writing this, I am starting to see that maybe this isn't a contradiction? Maybe on AVERAGE they pay less but individually they might just be paying more? Interestingly, I could go from 501 to 650 and still have an average that's less than the previous average. This obviously is the result of the minuscule effect the full fare coach proportion has on the average. But then answer choice B's "costs about the same" goes out the window!
However, one can reason by saying that it is still sufficient to prove the conclusion by saying that the price is in and around the same price it used to be. However, If my calculation is indeed correct, then i suppose B's claim about being around the same cost need not be necessary.
I am probably going to confuse everyone who is going to read this. I sound like I'm manic!
By the way, the arrangement of my columns and rows for both the scenarios have been thrown out of whack. "Discount fare" and "full price fare" represent columns and all the numbers shown should fall under these columns. Likewise, "No of people", "price payed by each" and "total" represent rows.