Answer:
a. 199,389
b. b. From the part A, the question suggests a 0.9% yearly decrease which amounts to 199,389. This answer does not correspond to their recorded figure because the 0.9% decrease was just an average taken over the period. There could be years that the decrease was way smaller than the recorded average, thus using average may not be a good way for calculating population decrease over a period of time.
Explanation:
a. Population in 2009 = 192,370
This means that in 2005 the population = 192,370 x 1.009 x 1.009 x 1.009 x 1.009 = 199,389
b. From the part A, the question suggests a 0.9% yearly decrease which amounts to 199,389. This answer does not correspond to their recorded figure because the 0.9% decrease was just an average taken over the period. There could be years that the decrease was way smaller than the recorded average, thus using average may not be a good way for calculating population decrease over a period of time.