After a round of layoffs, a company that used to have 1300 employees now has 950 . They then issue a press release saying, "In spite of trying economic times, we were able to limit job cuts to just \( 30 \% \) of our job force." A couple of years later, they raise the number of employees back to 1300 . This time, they claim "We were able to increase our job force by more than \( 35 \% \) !" In which press release were they lying? They were lying in \( \begin{array}{l}\text { (Choose one) } \\ \text { neither press release } \\ \text { the first press release } \\ \text { the second press release } \\ \text { both press releases }\end{array} \)

Let's analyze both press releases to determine if there were any inaccuracies: ### First Press Release: - **Initial Number of Employees:** 1,300 - **Post-Layoff Number of Employees:** 950 - **Number of Job Cuts:** 1,300 - 950 = 350 - **Percentage of Job Cuts:** (350 / 1,300) × 100 ≈ **26.92%** **Claim:** "We were able to limit job cuts to just **30%** of our job force." - **Analysis:** The actual job cuts were approximately **26.92%**, which is **less than 30%**. Therefore, the claim is **accurate**. ### Second Press Release: - **Post-Layoff Number of Employees:** 950 - **Number of Employees After Rehiring:** 1,300 - **Number of Jobs Added:** 1,300 - 950 = 350 - **Percentage Increase:** (350 / 950) × 100 ≈ **36.84%** **Claim:** "We were able to increase our job force by more than **35%**!" - **Analysis:** The actual increase was approximately **36.84%**, which is **more than 35%**. Therefore, this claim is also **accurate**. ### Conclusion: Both press releases accurately represent the percentage changes in the company's workforce. **Answer:** **neither press release**