Wrong calculation for vaccination revenue?

Question

Hi,

I'm trying to figure out why I can't get the solution for the Chicago vaccination revenue.

So my method has been to calculate per vet revenue, so per vet for Chicago:

50% vaccinations * 200 visits = 100 visits per month per vet
100 * 300 per visit = $30,000 per vet for vaccinations per month

* 16 vets for Chicago = $480,000 monthly vaccination revenue, against the $360,000.

Then the total would adjust to 1,160,000 per month and so on.

The answer approach has the same result?

16 * 50% = 8 vets
8*200 = 1,600 appointments
1,600 * 300 = $480,000 per month

Not sure where I'm going wrong here?

Answer 1

Hey Anonymous,

I did the math and I agree with you! Not sure if we are missing a hidden assumption.

In any case, Austin is still higher and so we should open there (and that's why there might be a potential small mistake in the case -- it's not super-relevant for the final decision).

Best,

Tom

Answer 2

You're not wrong. Both your method and the answer approach give $480,000. Your math is correct.

Why the answer key says $360,000.

Few possibilities. Different assumption about the 50 percent (maybe only some vets do vaccinations). Different visit volume or revenue per visit. Or genuinely an error in the answer key, this happens more often than you'd think in practice materials.

Re-read the prompt carefully for any constraint you might have missed, like a footnote on which vets do vaccinations or a blended price.

If the inputs you've shared are accurate, $480,000 is the right answer.

Don't second-guess correct math. The answer key isn't always right.

Good luck.

Answer 3

You’re not going wrong, your math is actually identical to the answer’s math. You just calculated it per‑vet and they calculated it per‑appointment, but both give $480k. The official $360k number comes from a different assumption in the case (usually fewer vets, lower visit volume, or a lower vaccination share). Your method is correct for the inputs you used, the discrepancy is because the case’s inputs aren’t the same as the ones you’re applying.

Alessa

Answer 4

The math is correct, and it's the same (just different calculation order). So the issue is NOT the math