| City | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bangalore | 14 | 16 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| Chennai | 14 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 18 |
| Delhi | 20 | 20 | 22 | 24 | 26 |
| Hyderabad | 12 | 13 | 14 | 16 | 18 |
| Kolkata | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Mumbai | 10 | 16 | 14 | 16 | 18 |
| City | In lakhs |
|---|---|
| Bangalore | 2.0 |
| Chennai | 1.7 |
| Delhi | 2.2 |
| Hyderabad | 1.6 |
| Kolkata | 1.4 |
| Mumbai | 2.4 |
This question builds two years of compounded growth on top of the 2001 base figures, then compares the two cities.
For Mumbai, start with 2.4 lakhs in 2001. The 2002 growth rate from the table is 10%, so multiply by 1.10 to get 2.64 lakhs. The 2003 growth rate is 16%, so multiply 2.64 by 1.16, giving 3.0624 lakhs as Mumbai's 2003 figure.
For Delhi, start with 2.2 lakhs in 2001. The 2002 rate is 20%, so multiply by 1.20 to get 2.64 lakhs. The 2003 rate is also 20%, so multiply again by 1.20, giving 3.168 lakhs as Delhi's 2003 figure.
Now divide Mumbai's figure by Delhi's figure and convert to a percentage: $ (3.0624 / 3.168) \times 100 = 96.67 $, which rounds to 97.
The correct option is (c) 97.
Instead of finding the 2002 and 2003 totals separately and then subtracting, this method isolates the 2003 growth amount directly.
First get the 2002 base: $ 1.6 \times 1.12 = 1.792 $ lakhs, since Table 1 shows a 12% rise from 2001 to 2002.
The increase from 2002 to 2003 equals the 2002 base multiplied by the 2003 growth rate, since that rate is applied on top of the 2002 figure. The 2003 rate is 13%, so the increase is $ 1.792 \times 0.13 = 0.23296 $ lakhs.
Convert this to actual units by multiplying by 1,00,000: $ 0.23296 \times 100000 = 23296 $.
The correct option is (d) 23,296.
This problem gives a direct ratio between 2004 and 2007, so the 2007 figure does not need to be built up year by year through 2007; it is calculated backward from 2004.
First build the 2004 figure from the 2001 base of 1.4 lakhs using the steady 10% yearly rise shown in Table 1: $ 1.4 \times 1.10 \times 1.10 \times 1.10 = 1.8634 $ lakhs.
The question states that this 2004 figure is 70% of the 2007 figure. Writing this as an equation: $ 0.70 \times (2007 \text{ count}) = 1.8634 $.
Solving for the 2007 count: $ 2007 \text{ count} = 1.8634 / 0.70 = 2.662 $ lakhs.
Converting to actual units: $ 2.662 \times 100000 = 266200 $.
The correct option is (b) 2,66,200.
This question needs only two compounding steps applied to Chennai's 2001 base figure.
Start with the 2001 figure of 1.7 lakhs from Table 2. Apply the 2002 rate of 14% from Table 1: $ 1.7 \times 1.14 = 1.938 $ lakhs.
Apply the 2003 rate of 16% to this new figure: $ 1.938 \times 1.16 = 2.24808 $ lakhs.
Convert lakhs to actual units by multiplying by 1,00,000: $ 2.24808 \times 100000 = 224808 $.
The correct option is (a) 2,24,808.
This question needs four compounding steps from the 2001 base, then a ratio comparison, so it helps to track the multiplying factor instead of recomputing from scratch each time.
Starting from 2.0 lakhs in 2001, the combined growth factor from 2001 to 2003 is $ 1.14 \times 1.16 = 1.3224 $, giving a 2003 figure of $ 2.0 \times 1.3224 = 2.6448 $ lakhs.
The combined growth factor from 2003 to 2005 is $ 1.18 \times 1.19 = 1.4042 $, since those are the 2004 and 2005 rates.
The ratio of the 2005 figure to the 2003 figure is exactly this second factor, because the 2003 figure cancels out: $ 2005 / 2003 = 1.4042 $.
Comparing 1.4042 to the answer choices, it is closest to $ 7/5 = 1.4 $.
The correct option is (a) 7 : 5.
| Year | Salesman A | Salesman B | Salesman C | Salesman D | Salesman E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 27350 | 26850 | 26200 | 27850 | 28640 |
| 1991 | 28500 | 27900 | 27900 | 30040 | 29000 |
| 1992 | 25200 | 27400 | 28200 | 29800 | 28750 |
| 1993 | 29800 | 28000 | 29100 | 30060 | 30000 |
| 1994 | 24600 | 28500 | 29400 | 29800 | 29750 |
| 1995 | 27000 | 29000 | 30000 | 32000 | 29700 |