In 1950, the populations of Akron and Bloomington were equal. Since then, Akron’s population has increased by 45%, whereas Bloomington’s population has decreased by 15,000. If the combined population of the two cities has increased by 10% since 1950, what is the current population of Akron?
Answer Choices
Correct answer marked belowSee the full step-by-step explanation
You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.
Track your performance and improve
Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.
Unlock the full explanation
Create a free account to reveal the correct answer, see the step-by-step explanation, and start tracking your GMAT progress.
The combined population increased by 10% is the key. Let each original be x, so original total = 2x. Akron now = 1.45x, Bloomington now = x - 15000. Combined now = 1.45x + x - 15000 = 2.45x - 15000. This equals 1.10(2x) = 2.2x. So 2.45x - 15000 = 2.2x → 0.25x = 15000 → x = 60000. Then Akron now = 1.45 * 60000 = 87000.
Nice, I got 87000 too. The part that tripped me up was that the 10% increase applies to the combined total, not each city.
How did you get 1.10(2x)? I get that combined increased by 10%, but original combined is 2x, so 10% more is 2.2x. Yes.
I set up the equation and got x = 60,000, but then I mistakenly chose 60,000 as the answer. Classic trap. The question asks for current population of Akron, not the original.
Happens to the best of us. The choices include both 60k and 87k, so they know people will do that.
This one is tricky because Bloomington's decrease is a fixed number, not a percentage. I had to read it twice to make sure I wasn't misinterpreting.
Is there a faster way to backsolve? I tried plugging in choices for Akron's current population, but got tangled up. The algebra seems cleaner.
Backsolving might be messy because you also need to find Bloomington's original. Algebra is probably faster here.
What it tests
Your ability to compute percentage change, percentage of a whole, and to work backwards from a final value.
Common trap
Treating successive percentage changes as additive — a 10% rise then a 10% fall is not back to the start.