There were approximately 113,000 occupational therapy jobs in the United States in 2012. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected...
GMAT Problem-Solving and Data Analysis : (PS_DA) Questions
There were approximately \(\mathrm{113,000}\) occupational therapy jobs in the United States in \(\mathrm{2012}\). The Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected that this number will increase by \(\mathrm{29\%}\) from \(\mathrm{2012}\) to \(\mathrm{2022}\). Of the following, which is closest to the number of occupational therapy jobs the bureau has projected for the United States in \(\mathrm{2022}\)?
115,900
116,300
142,000
145,800
1. TRANSLATE the problem information
- Given information:
- 2012 jobs: \(113,000\)
- Projected increase: \(29\%\) from 2012 to 2022
- Need to find: Total jobs in 2022
- What this tells us: We need to calculate what \(113,000\) becomes after a \(29\%\) increase
2. TRANSLATE the percentage increase concept
- "Increase by \(29\%\)" means the new amount = original amount + \(29\%\) of original amount
- This can be calculated as:
\(\mathrm{New\ amount = Original \times (1 + 0.29)}\)
\(\mathrm{New\ amount = Original \times 1.29}\) - So we need: \(113,000 \times 1.29\)
3. SIMPLIFY the calculation
- \(113,000 \times 1.29 = 145,770\) (use calculator)
- Looking at answer choices, \(145,770\) is closest to \(145,800\)
Answer: D. 145,800
Why Students Usually Falter on This Problem
Most Common Error Path:
Weak TRANSLATE skill: Misunderstanding what "increase by \(29\%\)" means
Students often think "increase by \(29\%\)" means "add 29" or "add 2,900" instead of adding \(29\%\) of the original amount. They might calculate:
- \(113,000 + 29 = 113,029\) (way too small)
- \(113,000 + 2,900 = 115,900\)
This may lead them to select Choice A (115,900)
Second Most Common Error:
Poor TRANSLATE reasoning: Confusing \(29\%\) with \(2.9\%\)
Students might convert \(29\%\) incorrectly as \(2.9\%\) and calculate:
\(113,000 \times 1.029 = 116,277\)
This may lead them to select Choice B (116,300)
The Bottom Line:
The key challenge is correctly interpreting "increase by \(29\%\)" as multiplying by \(1.29\), not just adding some version of 29 to the original number.
115,900
116,300
142,000
145,800