Every day, Tom walks from his home to his office, via the same route, covering s feet at a speed of x feet per minute. Today he took a different route and ended up walking 10% more than he usually does, at a speed that was 100 meters per minute faster than his usual speed. What is the percentage change in the time he took today compared to the time he takes on a usual day? (1 feet =0.3 meter) a)67% decreaseb)67% increasec)10% decreased)10% increasee)200% decreaseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

GMAT Exam > GMAT Questions > Every day, Tom walks from his home to his off...

Every day, Tom walks from his home to his office, via the same route, covering s feet at a speed of x feet per minute. Today he took a different route and ended up walking 10% more than he usually does, at a speed that was 100 meters per minute faster than his usual speed. What is the percentage change in the time he took today compared to the time he takes on a usual day? (1 feet =0.3 meter)

a)
67% decrease
b)
67% increase
c)
10% decrease
d)
10% increase
e)
200% decrease

Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Every day, Tom walks from his home to his office, via the same route, ...

Let’s let m = the time, in minutes, that it takes Tom to walk s feet at a rate of x ft/min. Thus, we have the following distance equation for Tom’s usual day:
x * m = s
m = s/x
Tom’s rate today - x meters/min - is equivalent to x/0.3 ft/min, and we use this value in his distance equation for today. Letting n = the time, in minutes, that it takes him to walk 10% more distance than normal (1.1s feet) at a rate of x/0.3 ft/min, we have today’s equation as:
x/0.3 * n = 1.1s
n = 1.1s / (x/0.3)
n = 0.33s/x
To determine the percent change in the time it takes him today, compared to his usual time, we use the percent change formula (New - Old)/Old * 100:
(0.33s/x - s/x) / (s/x) *100
(0.33s - s)/s *100
(0.33 - 1)/1 *100 = - 67 percent
Thus, today, Tom took 67% less time than on a usual day.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Every day, Tom walks from his home to his office, via the same route, ...

Answered by Talent Skill Learning · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Test: Distance And Speed- 1
15 Ques | 30 Min

Start Free Test

View all free GMAT tests

Community Answer

Every day, Tom walks from his home to his office, via the same route, ...

Calculating the Percentage Change in Time Taken

Given:
- Distance covered on usual route: s feet
- Speed on usual route: x feet per minute
- Distance covered on the new route: 1.1s feet (10% more than usual)
- Speed on new route: (x + 100) meters per minute

Converting Units:
1 foot = 0.3 meters
- Speed on usual route: x feet per minute = 0.3x meters per minute
- Speed on new route: (x + 100) meters per minute

Calculating Time Taken:
- Time taken on usual route = s / x minutes
- Time taken on new route = 1.1s / (0.3x + 100) minutes

Calculating Percentage Change in Time:
- Percentage Change = [(New Time - Old Time) / Old Time] * 100
- Percentage Change = [(1.1s / (0.3x + 100) - s / x) / (s / x)] * 100
- Percentage Change = [(1.1/x - 1) / (0.3 + 100/x)] * 100
- Percentage Change = [(1.1/x - 1) / (0.3 + 100/x)] * 100
- Percentage Change = [0.1 / (0.3 + 100/x)] * 100
- Percentage Change = 0.1 * 100 / (0.3 + 100/x)
- Percentage Change = 10 / (0.3 + 100/x)
- Percentage Change = 10 / (0.3 + 100/x) * 100%
Therefore, the percentage change in the time taken by Tom today compared to his usual day is a 67% decrease.

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that the hypothesis mentioned in the first paragraph is not entirely accurate because it fails to take into account which one of the following in predicting the effects of increased vegetation on the rate of global warming?

View answer

Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The passage suggests that Patterson and Flint would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about increased levels of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere?

View answer

Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.The author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about the conclusions drawn on the basis of the research on plant growth mentioned in the first paragraph of the passage?

View answer

Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.Which one of the following best states the main point of the passage?

View answer

Experts anticipate that global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) will have doubled by the end of the twenty-first century. It is known that CO2 can contribute to global warming by (5) trapping solar energy that is being reradiated as heat from the Earth’s surface. However, some research has suggested that elevated CO2 levels could enhance the photosynthetic rates of plants, resulting in a lush world of agricultural abundance, and that this CO2 (10) fertilization effect might eventually decrease the rate of global warming. The increased vegetation in such an environment could be counted on to draw more CO2 from the atmosphere. The level of CO2 would thus increase at a lower rate than many experts have (15) predicted.However, while a number of recent studies confirm that plant growth would be generally enhanced in an atmosphere rich in CO2, they also suggest that increased CO2 would differentially increase the growth (20) rate of different species of plants, which could eventually result in decreased agricultural yields. Certain important crops such as corn and sugarcane that currently have higher photosynthetic efficiencies than other plants may lose that edge in an atmosphere (25) rich in CO2. Patterson and Flint have shown that these important crops may experience yield reductions because of the increased performance of certain weeds. Such differences in growth rates between plant species could also alter ecosystem stability. Studies have (30) shown that within rangeland regions, for example, a weedy grass grows much better with plentiful CO2 than do three other grasses. Because this weedy grass predisposes land to burning, its potential increase may lead to greater numbers of and more severe wildfires in (35) future rangeland communities.It is clear that the CO2 fertilization effect does not guarantee the lush world of agricultural abundance that once seemed likely, but what about the potential for the increased uptake of CO2 to decrease the rate of global (40) warming? Some studies suggest that the changes accompanying global warming will not improve the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2. Billings’ simulation of global warming conditions in wet tundra grasslands showed that the level of CO2 (45) actually increased. Plant growth did increase under these conditions because of warmer temperatures and increased CO2 levels. But as the permafrost melted, more peat (accumulated dead plant material) began to decompose. This process in turn liberated more CO2 to (50) the atmosphere. Billings estimated that if summer temperatures rose four degrees Celsius, the tundra would liberate 50 percent more CO2 than it does currently. In a warmer world, increased plant growth, which could absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, would (55) not compensate for this rapid increase in decomposition rates. This observation is particularly important because high-latitude habitats such as the tundra are expected to experience the greatest temperature increase.Which one of the following best describes the function of the last paragraph of the passage?

View answer

Top Courses for GMATView all

GMAT Focus Edition Mock Test Series 2025

Quantitative for GMAT

Crash Course for GMAT

Data Insights for GMAT

100 RCs for GMAT

Top Courses for GMAT

View all

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Every day, Tom walks from his home to his office, via the same route, covering s feet at a speed of x feet per minute. Today he took a different route and ended up walking 10% more than he usually does, at a speed that was 100 meters per minute faster than his usual speed. What is the percentage change in the time he took today compared to the time he takes on a usual day? (1 feet =0.3 meter) a)67% decreaseb)67% increasec)10% decreased)10% increasee)200% decreaseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2025 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Every day, Tom walks from his home to his office, via the same route, covering s feet at a speed of x feet per minute. Today he took a different route and ended up walking 10% more than he usually does, at a speed that was 100 meters per minute faster than his usual speed. What is the percentage change in the time he took today compared to the time he takes on a usual day? (1 feet =0.3 meter) a)67% decreaseb)67% increasec)10% decreased)10% increasee)200% decreaseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Every day, Tom walks from his home to his office, via the same route, covering s feet at a speed of x feet per minute. Today he took a different route and ended up walking 10% more than he usually does, at a speed that was 100 meters per minute faster than his usual speed. What is the percentage change in the time he took today compared to the time he takes on a usual day? (1 feet =0.3 meter) a)67% decreaseb)67% increasec)10% decreased)10% increasee)200% decreaseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Every day, Tom walks from his home to his office, via the same route, covering s feet at a speed of x feet per minute. Today he took a different route and ended up walking 10% more than he usually does, at a speed that was 100 meters per minute faster than his usual speed. What is the percentage change in the time he took today compared to the time he takes on a usual day? (1 feet =0.3 meter) a)67% decreaseb)67% increasec)10% decreased)10% increasee)200% decreaseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Every day, Tom walks from his home to his office, via the same route, covering s feet at a speed of x feet per minute. Today he took a different route and ended up walking 10% more than he usually does, at a speed that was 100 meters per minute faster than his usual speed. What is the percentage change in the time he took today compared to the time he takes on a usual day? (1 feet =0.3 meter) a)67% decreaseb)67% increasec)10% decreased)10% increasee)200% decreaseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Every day, Tom walks from his home to his office, via the same route, covering s feet at a speed of x feet per minute. Today he took a different route and ended up walking 10% more than he usually does, at a speed that was 100 meters per minute faster than his usual speed. What is the percentage change in the time he took today compared to the time he takes on a usual day? (1 feet =0.3 meter) a)67% decreaseb)67% increasec)10% decreased)10% increasee)200% decreaseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Every day, Tom walks from his home to his office, via the same route, covering s feet at a speed of x feet per minute. Today he took a different route and ended up walking 10% more than he usually does, at a speed that was 100 meters per minute faster than his usual speed. What is the percentage change in the time he took today compared to the time he takes on a usual day? (1 feet =0.3 meter) a)67% decreaseb)67% increasec)10% decreased)10% increasee)200% decreaseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Every day, Tom walks from his home to his office, via the same route, covering s feet at a speed of x feet per minute. Today he took a different route and ended up walking 10% more than he usually does, at a speed that was 100 meters per minute faster than his usual speed. What is the percentage change in the time he took today compared to the time he takes on a usual day? (1 feet =0.3 meter) a)67% decreaseb)67% increasec)10% decreased)10% increasee)200% decreaseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Every day, Tom walks from his home to his office, via the same route, covering s feet at a speed of x feet per minute. Today he took a different route and ended up walking 10% more than he usually does, at a speed that was 100 meters per minute faster than his usual speed. What is the percentage change in the time he took today compared to the time he takes on a usual day? (1 feet =0.3 meter) a)67% decreaseb)67% increasec)10% decreased)10% increasee)200% decreaseCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.

Explore Courses for GMAT exam