Cocojas S.

asked • 07/23/14

Population growth rate

From 2010 to 2013, big ol Texas had a population growth rate of 5.18%, starting with a massive 25,145,561 earthlings! On the other hand, California had a population of 37,253,956 in 2010 and grew by 2.90%. Explain which city the aliens will take first and why?
 
But seriously, please let me know how many years it will take until Texas has the same amount of people as California. Muchos gracias! Oh, please show your work or at least explain so I can understand how to answer these types of questions.

1 Expert Answer

By:

Peter H.

Hi -
 
The wording on the student's question is confusing; specifically the growth rates. It seems that you have interpreted the growth rate percentages to be YEARLY growth rates -- 5.18% per year (TX) and 2.9% per year (CA). However, checking the statistics of population -- for example, for TX at
 
   https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/census.html
 
one can compute that over the past 5 years (through 2012), TX has been pretty steady at about 1.7% per year. Thus, the "5.18%" is not the yearly value, it is the total population growth for 3 year period of 2010-2013. I believe the same holds for CA.
 
Regards, Pete
Report

07/23/14

Peter H.

Hi,
 
I think the answer is fundamentally correct, but I believe there is one issue -- the student's question is confusing regarding the "growth rate" values. It seems you have interpreted the values of 5.18% and 2.9% to be YEARLY values. That is, 5.18% per year (TX) and 2.9% per year (CA). However, checking population statistics -- for example, TX at
 
  https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/census.html
 
I compute that the TX growth rate is reasonably steady at 1.6 to 1.8% per year over the past 6 years or so. Thus, the stated "5.18%" is not a yearly value, it is a total over the 3-year period of 2010 to 2013. I believe the same is true for the CA value; 2.9% is a 3-year total.
 
Regards, Pete
Report

07/23/14

Jim S.

tutor
Hi Pete,
       Many of the questions posted here are ambiguous to say the least especially with units of measure. You went the extra mile and cleared up the confusion. So the answer is actually 3*17.2 or 51.6 yrs.
Thanks
Jim
Report

07/23/14

Peter H.

Thanks for the update Jim. Best wishes, Pete
Report

07/23/14

Cocojas S.

Pete, you are correct in assuming that the growth rate is for the entire 3 year period, as I started my question with "From 2010 to 2013" and I never mention "yearly."
 
This makes sense and I appreciate the feedback!. Thanks for your answer.
Report

07/24/14

Still looking for help? Get the right answer, fast.

Ask a question for free

Get a free answer to a quick problem.
Most questions answered within 4 hours.

OR

Find an Online Tutor Now

Choose an expert and meet online. No packages or subscriptions, pay only for the time you need.