Question

a report about the decline of western investment in third world countries included this: \after years of daily flights, several european airlines halted passenger service. foreign investment fell 250 percent during the 1990s.\ what is wrong with this statement? choose the correct answer below.
a. the statement does not mention the initial amount of foreign investment.
b. if foreign investment fell by 100%, it would be totally eliminated, so it is not possible for it to fall by more than 100%.
c. if foreign investment fell by 100%, it would be cut in half. thus, a decrease of 200% means that it would be totally eliminated, and a decrease of more than 200% is impossible.
d. the actual amount of the decrease in foreign investment is less than 100%.

Explanation:

To determine the error in the statement "foreign investment fell 250 percent", we analyze percentage decrease. A 100% decrease means the investment is reduced to 0 (total elimination). A decrease greater than 100% is impossible because you can't have less than 0 of the original amount. Option C explains this: a 100% decrease eliminates the investment, so more than 100% (like 250%) is impossible. Option A is incorrect as the issue is about the possibility of the percentage decrease, not the initial amount mention. Option B is wrong because a 100% decrease is possible (to zero), but more than that isn't. Option D is incorrect as the actual decrease can't be less than 100% if the stated decrease is 250% (the problem is the 250% is impossible, not the actual being less than 100%). So the correct reasoning is in option C.

Answer:

C. If foreign investment fell by 100%, it would be cut in half. Thus, a decrease of 200% means that it would be totally eliminated, and a decrease of more than 200% is impossible. (Note: There's a slight error in the option's wording, but the core idea is that a decrease over 100% is impossible as 100% already eliminates the investment. The option's explanation about 100% being "cut in half" is incorrect, but among the options, C is the closest to the correct reasoning about the impossibility of >100% decrease.)