The post GMAT Tip of the Week: Cam Newton’s GMAT Success Strategy appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>**Why is Cam dancing and smiling so much?**

The answer? Because smiling may very well be the secret to success, both in the Super Bowl and on the GMAT.

Note: this won’t be the most mathematically tactical GMAT tip post you read, and it’s not something you’ll really be able to practice on Sunday afternoon while you hit the *Official Guide for GMAT Review* before your Super Bowl party starts. But it may very well be the tip that most impacts your score on test day, because managing stress and optimizing performance are major keys for GMAT examinees. And smiling is a great way to do that.

First, there’s science: the act of smiling itself is *known to release endorphins*, relaxing your mind and giving you a more positive outlook. And this happens regardless of whether you’re actually happy or optimistic – you can literally “fake it till you make it” by smiling through a stressful or unpleasant experience.

(Plus there’s the fact that smiling puts OTHER people in a better mood, too, which won’t really help you on the GMAT since it’s you against a computer, but for your b-school and job interviews, a smile can go a long way toward an upbeat experience for both you and the interviewer.)

There are plenty of ways to force yourself to smile. One is the obvious: just do it. Write it down on the top of your noteboard in all caps: **SMILE!** And force yourself to do it, even when it doesn’t feel natural.

But you can also laugh/smile at yourself more naturally: when Question 1 is a permutations problem and you were dreading the idea of a permutations problem, you can laugh at your bad luck but also at the fact that at least you’re getting it over with while you still have plenty of time to recover. When you blank on a rule and have to test small numbers to prove it, you can laugh at the fact that had you not been so fascinated with the video games on your calculator in middle school you’d know that cold. You can smile when you see a friend’s name in a word problem or a Sentence Correction reference to a place you want to visit someday.

And the tactical rationale there: when you can smile in relation to the subject matter on the test, you can remind yourself that, at least on some level, you enjoy learning and problem-solving and striving for achievement. The biggest difference between “good test takers” and “good students, but bad test takers” is in the way that each approaches problems: the latter group says, “I don’t know,” and feels doubt, while the former says, “I don’t know…yet,” and starts from a position of confidence and strength. Then when you apply that confidence and figure out a problem that for a second had you totally stumped, you’ve earned that next smile and the positive energy snowballs.

As you watch Cam Newton on Sunday (For you brand management hopefuls, he’ll be playing football between those commercials you’re so excited to see!), pay attention to that megawatt smile that’s been the topic of so much talk radio controversy the last few weeks. Cam smiles because he’s having fun out there, and then that smile leads to big plays, which is even more fun, and then he’s smiling again. Apply that Cam Newton “smile your way to success” philosophy on test day and maybe you’ll be the next one getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to school for two years… (We kid, Cam – we kid!)

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have **free online GMAT seminars **running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on **Facebook**, **YouTube**, **Google+** and **Twitter**!

*By Brian Galvin.*

The post GMAT Tip of the Week: Cam Newton’s GMAT Success Strategy appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post It’s All Greek to Me: How to Use Greek Concepts to Beat the GMAT appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>A few months ago, I wrote about this difficult Data Sufficiency question.

When I first encountered this problem I couldn’t help but wonder what kind of mad scientist question-writer engineered it. Where would such an idea even come from? It turns out, it wasn’t a GMAC employee at all, but Archimedes, the famous Greek geometer and coiner of the phrase “Eureka!”

The question is based on his attempt to trisect an angle with only a straight edge and a compass. (Alas, Archimedes’ work, though ingenious, was not technically a correct solution to the problem, as it provides only an approximation.) The reader is hereby invited to contemplate the kind of person who encounters a proof by Archimedes and instinctively thinks, “This would make an excellent Data Sufficiency question on the GMAT!” We’d like to believe that the good folks at GMAC are just like you and me, but perhaps not.

So this got me thinking: what other interesting Greek contributions to mathematics might be helpful in analyzing GMAT questions? In Euclid’s work *Elements,* he offers a simple and elegant proof for why there is no largest prime number. The proof proceeds by positing a hypothetical largest prime number “p.” We can then construct a product that consists of every prime number 2*3*5*7….*p. We’ll call this product “q.”

The next consecutive number will be q + 1. Now, we know that “q” contains 2 as a factor, as “q,” supposedly, contains every prime as a factor. Therefore q +1 will *not* contain 2 as a factor. (The next number to contain 2 as a factor will be q + 2.) We know that “q” contains 3 as a factor. Therefore q + 1 will not contain 3 as a factor. (The next number to contain 3 as a factor will be q + 3.)

Uh oh. If “p” really is the largest prime number, we’ve got a problem, because q + 1 will not contain *any* of the primes between 2 and p as factors. So either q + 1 is itself prime, or there is some prime greater than p and less than q + 1 that we’ve failed to consider. Either way, we’ve proven that p can’t be the largest prime number – I told you the Greeks were neat.

One axiom that’s worth internalizing from Euclid’s proof is the notion that two consecutive numbers cannot have any factors in common aside from 1. When q contains every prime from 2 to p as a factor, q + 1 contains none of those primes. How would this be helpful on the GMAT? Glad you asked. Check out this question:

*x is the product of all even numbers from 2 to 50, inclusive. The smallest prime factor of x + 1 must be: *

*(**A) Between 1 and 10*

*(B) **Between 11 and 15*

*(C) **Between 15 and 20*

*(D) **Between 20 and 25*

*(E) **Greater than 25*

We’re given information about x, and we’re asked about x + 1. If x is the product of all even numbers from 2 to 50, we can write x = 2 * 4 * 6 …* 50. This is the same as (1*2) * (2*2) * (3*2)… (25*2), which means the product consists of all the integers from 1 to 25, inclusive, and a bunch of 2’s.

So now we know that every prime number between 2 and 25 will be a factor of x. What about x + 1? (Paging Euclid!) We know that 2 is not a factor of x + 1, as 2 is a factor of x, and so the next multiple of 2 would be x + 2. We know that 3 is also not a factor of x + 1, as 3 is a factor of x, and so the next multiple of 3 would be x + 3. And once we’ve internalized that two consecutive numbers cannot have any factors in common aside from 1, we know that if *all* the primes between 2 and 25 are factors of x, *none* of those primes can be factors of x + 1, meaning that the smallest prime of x, whatever is, will be greater than 25. The answer, therefore, is E.

**Takeaway:** One of the beautiful things about mathematics is that fundamental truths do not change over time. What worked for the Greeks will work for us. The same axioms that allowed ancient mathematicians to grapple with problems two millennia ago will allow us to unravel the toughest GMAT questions. Learning a few of these axioms is not only interesting – though I’d caution against bringing up Archimedes’ trisection proof at a dinner party – but also helpful on the GMAT.

Plan on taking the GMAT soon? We have **GMAT prep courses** starting all the time. And be sure to follow us on **Facebook**, **YouTube**, **Google+ **and **Twitter**!

*By David Goldstein, a Veritas Prep GMAT instructor based in Boston. You can find more articles by him here.*

The post It’s All Greek to Me: How to Use Greek Concepts to Beat the GMAT appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Solving GMAT Critical Reasoning Questions Involving Rates appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>Say my average driving speed is 60 miles/hr. Does it matter whether I drive for 2 hours or 4 hours? Will my average speed change if I drive more (theoretically speaking)? No, right? When I drive for more hours, the distance I cover is more. When I drive for fewer hours, the distance I cover is less. If I travel for a longer time, does it mean my average speed has decreased? No. For that, I need to know what happened to the distance covered. If the distance covered is the same while time taken has increased, only then can I say that my speed was reduced.

Now we will look at an official question and hopefully convince you of the right answer:

*The faster a car is traveling, the less time the driver has to avoid a potential accident, and if a car does crash, higher speeds increase the risk of a fatality. Between 1995 and 2000, average highway speeds increased significantly in the United States, yet, over that time, there was a drop in the number of car-crash fatalities per highway mile driven by cars.*

*Which of the following, if true about the United States between 1995 and 2000, most helps to explain why the fatality rate decreased in spite of the increase in average highway speeds?*

*(A) The average number of passengers per car on highways increased.*

*(B) There were increases in both the proportion of people who wore seat belts and the proportion of cars that were equipped with airbags as safety devices.*

*(C) The increase in average highway speeds occurred as legal speed limits were raised on one highway after another.*

*(D) The average mileage driven on highways per car increased.*

*(E) In most locations on the highways, the density of vehicles on the highway did not decrease, although individual vehicles, on average, made their trips more quickly.*

Let’s break down the given argument:

- The faster a car, the higher the risk of fatality.
- In a span of 5 years, the average highway speed has increased.
- In the same time, the number of car crash fatalities per highway mile driven by cars has reduced.

This is a paradox question. In last 5 years, the average highway speed has increased. This would have increased the risk of fatality, so we would expect the number of car crash fatalities per highway mile to go up. Instead, it actually goes down. We need to find an answer choice that explains why this happened.

*(A) The average number of passengers per car on highways increased.*

If there are more people in each car, the risk of fatality increases, if anything. More people are exposed to the possibility of a crash, and if a vehicle is in fact involved in an accident, more people are at risk. It certainly doesn’t explain why the rate of fatality actually decreases.

*(B) There were increases in both the proportion of people who wore seat belts and the proportion of cars that were equipped with airbags as safety devices.*

This option tells us that the safety features in the cars have been enhanced. That certainly explains why the fatality rate has gone down. If the cars are safer now, the risk of fatality would have reduced, hence this option does help us in explaining the paradox. This is the answer, but let’s double-check by looking at the other options too.

*(C) The increase in average highway speeds occurred as legal speed limits were raised on one highway after another.*

This option is irrelevant – why the average speed increased is not our concern at all. Our only concern is that average speed has, in fact, increased. This should logically increase the risk of fatality, and hence, our paradox still stands.

*(D) The average mileage driven on highways per car increased.*

This is the answer choice that troubles us the most. The rate we are concerned about is number of fatalities/highway mile driven, and this option tells us that mileage driven by cars has increased.

Now, let’s consider the parallel with our previous distance-rate-time example:

Rate = Distance/Time

We know that if I drive for more time, it doesn’t mean that my rate changes. Here, however:

Rate = Number of fatalities/highway mile driven

In this case, if more highway miles are driven, it doesn’t mean that the rate will change. It actually has no impact on the rate; we would need to know what happened to the number of fatalities to find out what happened to the rate. Hence this option does not explain the paradox.

*(E) In most locations on the highways, the density of vehicles on the highway did not decrease, although individual vehicles, on average, made their trips more quickly.*

This answer choice tells us that on average, the trips were made more quickly, i.e. the speed increased. The given argument already tells us that, so this option does not help resolve the paradox.

Our answer is, therefore, (B).

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have **free online GMAT seminars** running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on **Facebook**, **YouTube**, **Google+**, and **Twitter**!

*Karishma, a Computer Engineer with a keen interest in alternative Mathematical approaches, has mentored students in the continents of Asia, Europe and North America. She teaches the **GMAT** for Veritas Prep and regularly participates in content development projects such as this blog!*

The post Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Solving GMAT Critical Reasoning Questions Involving Rates appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post GMAT Tip of the Week: Kanye, Wiz Khalifa, Twitter Beef…and GMAT Variables appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>**Kanye didn’t consider all the possibilities when he saw variables.**

A brief history of the beef: there was musical origin, as Wiz wanted a bit of credit for his young/wild/free friends for the term “Wave,” as Kanye changed his upcoming album title from *Swish* to *Waves*. But where things escalated quickly all stemmed from Wiz’s use of variables in the following tweet:

*Hit this kk and become yourself.*

Kanye, whose wife bears those exact initials, K.K., immediately interpreted those variables as a reference to Kim and lost his mind. But Wiz had intended those variables kk to mean something entirely different, a reference to his favorite drug of choice. And then…well let’s just say that things got out of hand.

So back to the GMAT: Kanye’s main mistake was that he didn’t consider alternate possibilities for the variables he saw in the tweet, and quickly built in some incorrect assumptions that led to disastrous results. Do not let this happen to you on the GMAT! Here’s how it could happen:

**1) Forgetting about not-obvious numbers.**

If a problem, for example, defines k as 10 < k < 12, you can’t just think “k = 11” because you don’t know that k has to be an integer. 11.9 or 10.1 are also possibilities. Similarly if k^2 = 121, you have to consider that k could be -11 as well as it could be 11.

Ultimately, that was Yeezy’s mistake: he saw KK and with tunnel vision saw the most obvious possibility. But why couldn’t “KK” have been Krispy Kreme or Kyle Korver or Kato Kaelin? Before you leap to conclusions on a GMAT variable, see if there’s anything else it could be.

**2) Assuming that each variable must represent a different number.**

This one is a bit more nuanced. Suppose you were asked:

*For positive integers a and b, is the product ab > 1?*

*(1) a = 1*

With that statement, you might start thinking, “Well if a is 1, b has to be something else…” but all the variable b really means is “a number we don’t know.” Just because a problem assigns two different variables does not mean that they represent two different numbers! B could also be 1…we just don’t know yet.

Where this manifests itself as a problem most often is on function problems. When people see the setup, for example:

*The function f is defined for all values x as f(x) = x^2 – x – 1*

They’ll often be confused when that’s paired with a question like, “Is f(a) > 1?” and a statement like:

*(1) -2 < a < 2*

“I know about f(x) but I don’t know anything about f(a),” they might say, but the way these variables work, f(x) means “the function of any number…we just don’t know which number” so when you then see f(a), a becomes that number you don’t know. You’ll do the same thing for a: f(a) = a^2 – a – 1. What goes in the parentheses is just “the number you perform the function on” – the function doesn’t just apply to the variable in the definition, but to any number, variable, or combination that is then put in the parentheses.

The real lesson here is this: variables on the GMAT are a lot like variables in Wiz Khalifa’s Twitter feed. You might think you know what they mean, but before you stake your reputation (or score) on your response to those variables, consider all the options. Hit this GMAT and become yourself.

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have **free online GMAT seminars **running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on **Facebook**, **YouTube**, **Google+** and **Twitter**!

*By Brian Galvin.*

The post GMAT Tip of the Week: Kanye, Wiz Khalifa, Twitter Beef…and GMAT Variables appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post Why Logic is More Important Than Algebra on the GMAT appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>If you’ve followed this blog for any length of time, you know that one of the themes we stress is that Quantitative Reasoning is not, primarily, a math test. Though math is certainly involved – How could it not be? – logic and reasoning are far more important factors than conventional mathematical facility. I stress this in every class I teach. So why the misconception that we need to hone our algebra chops?

I suspect that the culprit here is the explanations that often accompany official GMAC questions. On the whole, they tend to be biased in favor of purely algebraic solutions. They’re always* technically* correct, but often suboptimal for the test-taker who needs to arrive at a solution within two minutes. Consequently, many students, after reviewing these solutions and arriving at the conclusion that they would not have been capable of the hairy algebra proffered in the official solution, think they need to work on this aspect of their prep. And for the most part it isn’t true.

Here’s a good example:

*If x, y, and k are positive numbers such that [x/(x+y)]*10 + [y/(x+y)]*20 = k and if x < y, which of the following could be the value of k? *

A) 10

B) 12

C) 15

D) 18

E) 30

A large percentage of test-takers see this question, rub their hands together, and dive into the algebra. The solution offered in the Official Guide does the same – it is about fifteen steps, few of them intuitive. If you were fortunate enough to possess the algebraic virtuosity to solve the question in this manner, you’d likely chew up 5 or 6 minutes, a disastrous scenario on a test that requires you to average 2 minutes per problem.

The upshot is that it’s important for test-takers, when they peruse the official solution, not to arrive at the conclusion that they need to solve this question the same way the solution-writer did. Instead, we can use the same simple strategies we’re always preaching on this blog: pick some simple numbers.

We’re told that x<y, but for my first set of numbers, I like to make x and y the same value – this way, I can see what effect the restriction has on the problem. So let’s say x = 1 and y = 1. Plugging those values into the equation, we get:

(1/2) * 10 + (1/2) * 20 = k

5 + 10 = k

15 = k

Well, we know this isn’t the answer, because x should be less than y. So scratch off C. And now let’s see what the effect is when x is, in fact, less than y. Say x = 1 and y = 2. Now we get:

(1/3) * 10 + (2/3) * 20 = k

10/3 + 40/3 = k

50/3 = k

50/3 is about 17. So when we honor the restriction, k becomes larger than 15. The answer therefore must be D or E. Now we could pick another set of numbers and pay attention to the trend, or we can employ a bit of logic and common sense. The first term in the equation x/(x+y)*10 is some fraction multiplied by 10. So this term, logically, is some value that’s less than 10.

The second term in the equation is y/(x+y)*20, is some fraction multiplied by 20, this term must be less than 20. If we add a number that’s less than 10 to a number that’s less than 20, we’re pretty clearly not going to get a sum of 30. That leaves us with an answer of 18, or D.

(Note that if you’re really savvy, you’ll recognize that the equation is a weighted average. The coefficients in the weighted average are 10 and 20. If x and y were equal, we’d end up at the midway point, 15. Because 20 is multiplied by y, and y is greater than x, we’ll be pulled towards the high end of the range, leading to a k that must fall between 15 and 20 – only 18 is in that range.)

Takeaway: Never take a formal solution to a problem at face value. All you’re seeing is one way to solve a given question. If that approach doesn’t resonate for you, or seems so challenging that your conclusion is that you must purchase a host of textbooks in order to improve your formal math skills, then you haven’t absorbed what the GMAT is really about. Often, the relevant question isn’t, “Can you do the math?” It’s, “Can you reason your way to the answer without actually doing the math?”

*Official Guide question courtesy of the Graduate Management Admissions Council.

Plan on taking the GMAT soon? We have **GMAT prep courses** starting all the time. And be sure to follow us on **Facebook**, **YouTube**, **Google+ **and **Twitter**!

*By David Goldstein, a Veritas Prep GMAT instructor based in Boston. You can find more articles by him here.*

The post Why Logic is More Important Than Algebra on the GMAT appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Should You Use the Permutation or Combination Formula? appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>People have tried to answer this question in various ways, but some students still remain unsure. So we will give you a rule of thumb to follow in all permutation/combination questions:

**You never NEED to use the permutation formula!** You can always use the combination formula quite conveniently. First let’s look at what these formulas do:

**Permutation:** nPr = n!/(n-r)!

Out of n items, select r and arrange them in r! ways.

**Combination:** nCr = n!/[(n-r)!*r!]

Out of n items, select r.

So the only difference between the two formulas is that nCr has an additional r! in the denominator (that is the number of ways in which you can arrange r elements in a row). So you can very well use the combinations formula in place of the permutation formula like this:

nPr = nCr * r!

The nCr formula is far more versatile than nPr, so if the two formulas confuse you, just forget about nPr.

Whenever you need to “select,” “pick,” or “choose” r things/people/letters… out of n, it’s straightaway nCr. What you do next depends on what the question asks of you. Do you need to arrange the r people in a row? Multiply by r!. Do you need to arrange them in a circle? Multiply by (r-1)!. Do you need to distribute them among m groups? Do that! You don’t need to think about whether it is a permutation problem or a combination problem at all. Let’s look at this concept more in depth with the use of a few examples.

*There are 8 teachers in a school of which 3 need to give a presentation each. In how many ways can the presenters be chosen?*

In this question, you simply have to choose 3 of the 8 teachers, and you know that you can do that in 8C3 ways. That is all that is required.

8C3 = 8*7*6/3*2*1 = 56 ways

Not too bad, right? Let’s look at another question:

*There are 8 teachers in a school of which 3 need to give a presentation each. In how many ways can all three presentations be done?*

This question is a little different. You need to find the ways in which the presentations can be done. Here the presentations will be different if the same three teachers give presentations in different order. Say Teacher 1 presents, then Teacher 2 and finally Teacher 3 — this will be different from Teacher 2 presenting first, then Teacher 3 and finally Teacher 1. So, not only do we need to select the three teachers, but we also need to arrange them in an order. Select 3 teachers out of 8 in 8C3 ways and then arrange them in 3! ways:

We get 8C3 * 3! = 56 * 6 = 336 ways

Let’s try another one:

*Alex took a trip with his three best friends and there he clicked 7 photographs. He wants to put 3 of the 7 photographs on Facebook. How many groups of photographs are possible?*

For this problem, out of 7 photographs, we just have to select 3 to make a group. This can be done in 7C3 ways:

7C3 = 7*6*5/3*2*1 = 35 ways

Here’s another variation:

*Alex took a trip with his three best friends and there he clicked 7 photographs. He wants to put 3 of the 7 photographs on Facebook, 1 each on the walls of his three best friends. In how many ways can he do that?*

Here, out of 7 photographs, we have to first select 3 photographs. This can be done in 7C3 ways. Thereafter, we need to put the photographs on the walls of his three chosen friends. In how many ways can he do that? Now there are three distinct spots in which he will put up the photographs, so basically, he needs to arrange the 3 photographs in 3 distinct spots, which that can be done in 3! ways:

Total number of ways = 7C3 * 3! = (7*6*5/3*2*1) * 6= 35 * 6 = 210 ways

Finally, our last problem:

*12 athletes will run in a race. In how many ways can the gold, silver and bronze medals be awarded at the end of the race?*

We will start with selecting 3 of the 12 athletes who will win some position in the race. This can be done in 12C3 ways. But just selecting 3 athletes is not enough — they will be awarded 3 distinct medals of gold, silver, and bronze. Athlete 1 getting gold, Athlete 2 getting silver, and Athlete 3 getting bronze is not the same as Athlete 1 getting silver, Athlete 2 getting gold and Athlete 3 getting bronze. So, the three athletes need to be arranged in 3 distinct spots (first, second and third) in 3! ways:

Total number of ways = 12C3 * 3! ways

Note that some of the questions above were permutation questions and some were combination questions, but remember, we don’t need to worry about which is which. All we need to think about is how to solve the question, which is usually by starting with nCr and then doing any other required steps. Break the question down — select people and then arrange if required. This will help you get rid of the “permutation or combination” puzzle once and for all.

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have **free online GMAT seminars** running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on **Facebook**, **YouTube**, **Google+**, and **Twitter**!

*Karishma, a Computer Engineer with a keen interest in alternative Mathematical approaches, has mentored students in the continents of Asia, Europe and North America. She teaches the **GMAT** for Veritas Prep and regularly participates in content development projects such as this blog!*

The post Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Should You Use the Permutation or Combination Formula? appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post GMAT Tip of the Week: Stay In Your Lane (In The Snow And On Sentence Correction) appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>When driving in the snow:

- Don’t brake until you have to.
- Don’t make sudden turns or lane changes, and only turn if you have to.
- Stay calm and leave yourself space and time to make decisions.

And those same lessons apply to GMAT Sentence Correction. Approach these questions like you would approach driving in a blizzard, and you may very well earn that opportunity to drive through blustery New England storms as you pursue your MBA. What does that mean?

**1) Stay In Your Lane**

Just as quick, sudden jerks of the steering wheel will doom you on snowy/icy roads, sudden and unexpected decisions on GMAT Sentence Correction will get you in trouble. Your “lane” consists of the decisions that you’ve studied and practiced and can calmly execute: Modifiers, Verbs (tense and agreement), Pronouns, Comparisons, Parallelism in a Series, etc. It’s when you get out of that lane that you’re prone to skidding well off track. For example, on this problem (courtesy the Official Guide for GMAT Review):

*While Jackie Robinson was a Brooklyn Dodger, his courage in the face of physical threats and verbal attacks was not unlike that of Rosa Parks, who refused to move to the back of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama.*

*(A) not unlike that of Rosa Parks, who refused*

* (B) not unlike Rosa Parks, who refused*

* (C) like Rosa Parks and her refusal*

* (D) like that of Rosa Parks for refusing*

* (E) as that of Rosa Parks, who refused*

Your “lane” here is to check for Modifiers (Is “who refused” correct? Is it required?) and for logical, clear meaning (it is required, because otherwise you aren’t sure who refused to move to the back of the bus). But examinees are routinely baited into “jerking the wheel” and turning against the strange-but-correct structure of “not unlike.” When you’re taken off of your game, you often eliminate the correct answer (A) because you’re turning into a decision you’re just not great at making.

**2) Don’t Turn or Brake Until You Have To**

The GMAT *does* test Redundancy and Pronoun Reference (among other things), but those are error types that are dangerous to prioritize – much like it’s dangerous while driving in snow to decide quickly that you need to turn or hit the brakes. Too often, test-takers will slam on the Sentence Correction brakes at their first hint of, “That’s redundant!” (like they would for “not unlike” above) or “There are multiple nouns – that pronoun is unclear!” and steer away from that answer choice.

The problem, as you saw above, is that often this means you’re turning away from the proper path. “Not unlike” may scream “double-negative” or “redundant” to many, but it’s a perfectly valid way to express the idea that the two things aren’t close to identical, but they’re not as different as you might think. And you don’t need to know THAT, as much as you need to know that you shouldn’t ever make redundancy your first decision, because if you’re like most examinees you’re probably not that great at you…AND you don’t have to be, because the path toward your strengths will get you to your destination.

Similarly, this week the Veritas Prep Homework Help service got into an interesting email thread about why this sentence:

*Based on his experience in law school, John recommended that his friend take the GMAT instead of the LSAT.*

has a pronoun reference error, but this sentence:

*Mothers expect unconditional love from their children, and they are rarely disappointed.*

does not. And while there likely exists a technical, grammatical reason why, the GMAT reason really comes down to this: Does the problem make you address the pronoun reference? If not, don’t worry about it. In other words, don’t brake or turn until you have to. If you look at those sentences in GMAT problem form, you might have:

__Based on his experience in law school, John__ recommended that his friend take the GMAT instead of the LSAT.

*(A) Based on his experience in law school, John*

*(B) Having had a disappointing experience in law school, John*

*(C) Given his experience in law school, John*

Here, the question forces you to deal with the pronoun problem. The major differences between the choices are that A and C involve a pronoun, and B doesn’t. Here, you have to deal with that issue. But for the other sentence, you might see:

__Mothers expect unconditional love from their children, and they are__ rarely disappointed.

*(A) Mothers expect unconditional love from their children, and they are*

*(B) The average mother expects unconditional love from their children, and are*

*(C) The average mother expects unconditional love from their children, and they are*

*(D) Mothers, expecting unconditional love from their children, they are*

Here, the only choice that doesn’t include the pronoun “they” is choice B, but that choice commits a glaring pronoun (and verb) agreement error (“the average mother” is singular, but “their children” is plural…and the verb “are” is, too). So you don’t need to worry about the “they” (which clearly refers to “mothers” and not “children,” even though there happen to be two plural nouns in the sentence).

Grammatically, the presence of multiple nouns doesn’t alone make the pronoun itself ambiguous, but strategically for the GMAT, what you really need to know is that you don’t have to hit the brakes at the first sign of “unclear reference.” Wait and see if the answer choices give you a chance to address that, and if they do, then make sure that those choices are free of other, more binary errors first. Don’t turn or brake unless you have to.

**3) Stay calm and leave yourself space to make decisions.**

Just like a driver in the snow, as a GMAT test-taker you’ll be nervous and antsy. But don’t let that force you into rash decisions! Assess the answer choices before you try to determine whether something outside your 100% confidence interval is right or wrong in the original. You don’t need to make a decision on Choice A right away, just like you don’t need to change lanes simply for the sake of doing so. Have a plan and stick to it, both on the GMAT and on those snowy roads this weekend.

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have **free online GMAT seminars **running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on **Facebook**, **YouTube,** **Google+** and **Twitter**!

*By Brian Galvin.*

The post GMAT Tip of the Week: Stay In Your Lane (In The Snow And On Sentence Correction) appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Keeping an Open Mind in Critical Reasoning appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>We have discussed necessary and sufficient conditions before; we have also discussed assumptions before. This question from our own curriculum is an innovative take on both of these concepts. Let’s take a look.

*All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach. Michael is coached by one of the world’s elite coaches; therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in competition.*

*The argument above logically depends on which of the following assumptions?*

*(A) Michael has not suffered any major injuries in the past year.*

*(B) Michael’s competitors did not spend as much time in training as Michael did.*

*(C) Michael’s coach trained him for many hours.*

*(D) Most of the time Michael spent in training was productive.*

*(E) Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training.*

First we must break down the argument into premises and conclusions:

**Premises:**

- All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach.
- Michael is coached by one of the world’s elite coaches.

**Conclusion:** Michael will win a medal in competition.

Read the argument carefully:

*All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach.*

Are you wondering, “How does one know that all athletes who will win (in the future) would have spent many hours training under an elite coach?”

The answer to this is that it doesn’t matter how one knows – it is a premise and it has to be taken as the truth. How the truth was established is none of our business and that is that. If we try to snoop around too much, we will waste precious time. Also, what may seem improbable may have a perfectly rational explanation. Perhaps all athletes who are competing have spent many hours under an elite coach – we don’t know.

Basically, what this statement tells us is that spending many hours under an elite coach is a NECESSARY condition for winning. What you need to take away from this statement is that “many hours training under an elite coach” is a necessary condition to win a medal. Don’t worry about the rest.

*Michael is coached by one of the world’s elite coaches. *

It seems that Michael satisfies one necessary condition: he is coached by an elite coach.

**Conclusion:** Michael will win a medal in competition.

Now this looks like our standard “gap in logic”. To get this conclusion, the necessary condition has been taken to be sufficient. So if we are asked for the flaw in the argument, we know what to say.

Anyway, let’s check out the question (this is usually our first step):

*The argument above logically depends on which of the following assumptions?*

Note the question carefully – it is asking for an assumption, or a necessary premise for the conclusion to hold.

We know that “many hours training under an elite coach” is a necessary condition to win a medal. We also know that Michael has been trained by an elite coach. Note that we don’t know whether he has spent “many hours” under his elite coach. The necessary condition requires “many hours” under an elite coach.

If Michael has spent many hours under the elite coach then he satisfies the necessary condition to win a medal. It is still not sufficient for him to win the medal, but our question only asks for an assumption – a necessary premise for the conclusion to hold. It does not ask for the flaw in the logic.

Focus on what you are asked and look at answer choice (C):

*(C) Michael’s coach trained him for many hours.*

This is a necessary condition for Michael to win a medal. Hence, it is an assumption and therefore, (C) is the correct answer.

Don’t worry that the argument is flawed. There could be another question on this argument which asks you to find the flaw in it, however this particular question asks you for the assumption and nothing more.

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have **free online GMAT seminars** running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on **Facebook**, **YouTube**, **Google+**, and **Twitter**!

*Karishma, a Computer Engineer with a keen interest in alternative Mathematical approaches, has mentored students in the continents of Asia, Europe and North America. She teaches the **GMAT** for Veritas Prep and regularly participates in content development projects such as this blog!*

The post Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Keeping an Open Mind in Critical Reasoning appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post GMAT Tip of the Week: Your MLK Study Challenge (Remove Your Biases) appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>If Dr. King were alive today, he would certainly be proud of the legislation he inspired to end much of the explicit bias – you can’t eat here, vote there, etc. – that was part of the American legal code until the 1960s. But he would undoubtedly be dismayed by the implicit bias that still runs rampant across society.

This implicit bias is harder to detect and even harder to “fix.” It’s the kind of bias that, for example, the movie *Freaknomics* shows; often when the name at the top of a resume connotes some sort of stereotype, it subconsciously colors the way that the reader of that resume processes the rest of the information on it.

While that kind of subconscious bias is a topic for a different blog to cover, it has an incredible degree of relevance to the way that you attack GMAT Data Sufficiency problems. If you’re serious about studying for the GMAT, you’ll probably have long enacted your own versions of the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act well before you get to test day – that is to say, you’ll have figured out how to eliminate the kind of explicit bias that comes from reading a question like:

*If y is an odd integer and the product of x and y equals 222, what is the value of x?*

*1) x > 0*

*2) y is a 3 digit number*

Here, you’ll likely see very quickly that Statement 1 is not sufficient, and come back to Statement 2 with fresh eyes. You don’t know that x is positive, so you’ll quickly see that y could be 111 and x could be 2, or that y could be -111 and x could be -2, so Statement 2 is clearly also not sufficient. The explicit bias that came from seeing “x is positive” is relatively easy to avoid – you know not to carry over that explicit information from Statement 1 to Statement 2.

But you also need to be just as aware of implicit bias. Try this question, as it is more likely to appear on the actual GMAT:

*If y is an odd integer and the product of x and y equals 222, what is the value of x?*

*1) x is a prime number*

*2) y is a 3 digit number*

On this version of the problem, people become extremely susceptible to implicit bias. You no longer get to quickly rule out the obvious “x is positive.” Here, the first statement serves to pollute your mind – it is, on its own merit, sufficient (if y is odd and the product of x and y is even, the only prime number x could be is 2, the only even prime), but it also serves to get you thinking about positive numbers (only positive numbers can be prime) and integers (only integers are prime). But those aren’t explicitly stated; they’re just inferences that your mind quickly makes, and then has trouble getting rid of. So as you assess Statement 2, it’s harder for you to even think of the possibilities that:

x could be -2 and y could be -111: You’re not thinking about negatives!

x could be 2/3 and y could be 333: You’re not thinking about non-integers!

On this problem, over 50% of users say that Statement 2 is sufficient (and less than 25% correctly answer A, that Statement 1 alone is sufficient), because they fall victim to that implicit bias that comes from Statement 1 whispering – not shouting – “positive integers.”

Harder problems will generally prey on your more subtle bias, so you need to make sure you’re giving each statement a fresh set of available options. So this Martin Luther King, Jr. weekend, applaud the progress that you have made in removing explicit bias from your Data Sufficiency regimen – you now know not to include Statement 1 directly in your assessment of Statement 2 ALONE – but remember that implicit bias is just as dangerous to your score. Pay attention to the times that implicit bias draws you to a poor decision, and be steadfast in your mission to give each statement its deserved, unbiased attention.

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have **free online GMAT seminars **running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on **Facebook**, **YouTube,** **Google+** and **Twitter**!

*By Brian Galvin.*

The post GMAT Tip of the Week: Your MLK Study Challenge (Remove Your Biases) appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post GMAC to Test “Select Section Order” Option appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>**What Exactly Is The Pilot?**

Currently, the GMAT is given one way and one way only: Analytical Writing Assessment (30 minutes), Integrated Reasoning (30 minutes), Quantitative (75 minutes), and Verbal (75 minutes). With the pilot, students may choose to take the GMAT in one of these four ways:

1. Quantitative, Verbal, Integrated Reasoning, Analytical Writing Assessment

2. Quantitative, Verbal, Analytical Writing Assessment, Integrated Reasoning

3. Verbal, Quantitative, Integrated Reasoning, Analytical Writing Assessment

4. Analytical Writing Assessment, Integrated Reasoning, Verbal, Quantitative

You will need to select your preferred order when you register for a new test date on MBA.com. If you choose one of the experimental options above, then you will need to find an available test center in the February 23 – March 8 period; if choose the normal order in which the GMAT is given now (AWA, IR, Quant, Verbal), then you will not be considered part of the pilot program, and you can register for the test on any date.

On its website, GMAC makes a point of saying that the pilot will be very small, involving less than 1% of total testing volume. So, your odds of being invited to the pilot are very small. Also, if you participate, your score will be considered just as valid as if you had taken the “normal” GMAT, and schools will not know that you were part of the Select Section Order pilot.

**Why Is GMAC Doing This?**

No doubt GMAC wants to innovate and make the GMAT more applicant-friendly in the face of increasing competition from ETS in the form of the GRE. In its email to recent test takers, GMAC wrote:

A launch schedule for any further release of this feature beyond the pilot has not been determined at this time. The wider launch of the Select Section Order feature will depend greatly on the results of the pilot. GMAC may decide not to launch the feature for any number of reasons, including candidate dissatisfaction with the feature.

It’s safe to assume that GMAC will only expand the program if it finds that pilot students don’t perform significantly better or worse than their counterparts who take the GMAT in its normal order. Focusing the test on retake students — who give GMAC a terrific baseline for comparing results between the normal GMAT and the pilot program — is how they will determine whether or not playing with section order has a meaningful impact on scores.

**Should You Participate?**

If you’re one of the approximately 1% of GMAT candidates who are invited to take part in the pilot, it will be very tempting to take part and try customizing your test day experience. However, we normally recommend that students play the real game just the way they do in practice (and vice versa)… If you’re taking practice tests in the normal order, then we recommend taking the real GMAT the same way.

If stamina is a real problem for you — e.g., you find that you always run out of steam on the Verbal section and start making silly mistakes or simply run out of time — then it may be worth trying a format in which you get Quant and Verbal out of the way first. If you’re not sure, then stick with the normal order that you’re used to.

Were you invited to take part in the pilot? If so, let us know in the comments below!

*By Scott Shrum*

The post GMAC to Test “Select Section Order” Option appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>