The post Corrections for The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 2017 appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>*The below information about The Official Guide for GMAT® Review, 2017 is from the Graduate Management Admission Council – the makers of the GMAT exam. This content was originally posted on **The Official GMAT Blog**.*

We recently released *The* *Official Guide for GMAT® Review, 2017* and we have discovered that this version contains a number of typos that occurred during the publishing process.

We understand that these errors may make it difficult to understand certain content and could affect the study experience for the GMAT exam. Below, we’ve outlined options that provide updated materials. For complete details and a full list of Frequently Asked Questions, please visit: http://wileyactual.com/gmat.

**I have the 2017 Official Guide. What should I do?**

You have the following options:

- Use the errata document to replace chapter 4 and make corrections in the other chapters of the Official Guide. (
*An errata is a list of corrected errors for a book or other published work.*) - Request a free replacement copy of
*The**Official Guide for GMAT® Review, 2017*which will be shipped when the new, corrected version comes out in mid-September at the latest. For more information, contact your regional Wiley customer support here. - For a refund of your
*The**Official Guide for GMAT® Review, 2017*, please reference and follow the refund policy for the retailer from which you purchased the Guide.

In addition to this, candidates have access to comparable study materials that enable them to prepare with official GMAT practice questions, such as the *The Official Guide for GMAT® Verbal Review, 2017* and *The Official Guide for GMAT® Quantitative Review*, *2017**,* Free GMATPrep® Software, and more.

Both the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC) and Wiley deeply apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused individuals studying for the GMAT exam. We are committed to high-quality publication standards, and moving forward we will make every effort to ensure that our study products are superior.

GMAC customer care representatives are available to answer any questions or concerns at customercare@mba.com.

To inquire about a replacement copy of *The* *Official Guide for GMAT® Review, 201*7, contact your regional Wiley customer support here.

The post Corrections for The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 2017 appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Divisibility by Powers of 2 appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>For 2 – If the last digit of the number is divisible by 2 (is even), then the number is divisible by 2.

For 4 – If the number formed by last two digits of the number is divisible by 4, then the number is divisible by 4.

For 8 – If the number formed by last three digits of the number is divisible by 8, then the number is divisible by 8.

A similar rule applies to all powers of 2:

For 16 – If the number formed by last four digits of the number is divisible by 16, then the number is divisible by 16.

For 32 – If the number formed by last five digits of the number is divisible by 32, then the number is divisible by 32.

and so on…

Let’s figure out why:

The generic rule can be written like this: **A number M is divisible by 2^n if the last n digits of M are divisible by 2^n.**

Take, for example, a division by 8 (= 2^3), where M = 65748048 and n = 3.

Our digits of interest are the last three digits, 048.

48 is completely divisible by 8, so we conclude that 65748048 is also divisible by 8.

A valid question here is, “What about the remaining five digits? Why do we ignore them?”

Breaking down M, we can see that 65748048 = 65748000 + 048 (we’ve separated the last three digits).

Now note that 65748000 = 65748 * 1000. Since 1000 has three 0s, it is made up of three 2s and three 5s. Because 1000 it has three 2s as factor, it also has 8 as a factor. This means 65748000 has 8 as a factor by virtue of its three 0s.

All we need to worry about now is the last three digits, 048. If this is divisible by 8, 65748048 will also be divisible by 8. If it is not, 65748048 will not be divisible by 8.

In case the last three digits are not divisible by 8, you can still find the remainder of the number. Whatever remainder you get after dividing the last three digits by 8 will be the remainder when you divide the entire number by 8. This should not be a surprise to you now – 65748000 won’t have a remainder when divided by 8 since it is divisible by 8, so whatever the remainder is when the last 3 digits are divided by 8 will be the remainder when the entire number is divided by 8.

In the generic case, the number M will be split into a number with n zeroes and another number with n digits. The number with n zeroes will be divisible by 2^n because it has n 2s as factors. We just need to see the divisibility of the number with n digits.

We hope you have understood this concept. Let’s take look at a quick GMAT question to see this in action:

*What is the remainder when 1990990900034 is divided by 32 ?*

*(A) 16*

*(B) 8*

*(C) 4*

*(D) 2*

*(E) 0*

Breaking down our given number, 1990990900034 = 1990990900000 + 00034.

1990990900000 ends in five 0’s so it is divisible by 32. 34, when divided by 32, gives us a remainder of 2. Hence, when 1990990900034 is divided by 32, the remainder will be 2. Our answer is D.

*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: Divisibility by Powers of 2 appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post How to Use Units Digits to Avoid Doing Painful Calculations on the GMAT appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The units digit of 130,467 * 367,569 would be the same as the units digit of 7*9, as only the units digits of the larger numbers are relevant in such a calculation. 7*9 = 63, so the units digit of 130,467 * 367,569 is 3. This is one of those concepts that is so simple and elegant that it seems too good to be true.

And yet, this simple, elegant rule comes into play on the GMAT with surprising frequency.

Take this question for example:

*If n is a positive integer, how many of the ten digits from 0 through 9 could be the units digit of n^3?*

*A) three*

*B) four*

*C) six*

*D) nine*

*E) ten*

Surely, you think, the solution to this question can’t be as simple as cubing the easiest possible numbers to see how many different units digits result. And yet that’s exactly what we’d do here.

1^3 = 1

2^3 = 8

3^3 = 27 à units 7

4^3 = 64 à units 4

5^3 = ends in 5 (Fun fact: 5 raised to any positive integer will end in 5.)

6^3 = ends in 6 (Fun fact: 6 raised to any positive integer will end in 6.)

7^3 = ends in 3 (Well 7*7 = 49. 49*7 isn’t that hard to calculate, but only the units digit matters, and 9*7 is 63, so 7^3 will end in 3.)

8^3 = ends in 2 (Well, 8*8 = 64, and 4*8 = 32, so 8^3 will end in 2.)

9^3 = ends in 9 (9*9 = 81 and 1 * 9 = 9, so 9^3 will end in 9.)

10^3 = ends in 0

Amazingly, when I cube all the integers from 1 to 10 inclusive, I get 10 different units digits. Pretty neat. The answer is E.

Of course, this question specifically invoked the term “units digit.” What are the odds of that happening? Maybe not terribly high, but any time there’s a painful calculation, you’d want to consider thinking about the units digits.

Take this question, for example:

*A certain stock exchange designates each stock with a one, two or three letter code, where each letter is selected from the 26 letters of the alphabet. If the letters may be replaced and if the same letters used in a different order constitute a different code, how many different stocks is it possible to uniquely designate with these codes? *

*A) 2,951
B) 8,125
C) 15,600
D) 16,302
E) 18,278 *

Conceptually, this one doesn’t seem that bad.

If I wanted to make a one-letter code, there’d be 26 ways I could do so.

If I wanted to make a two-letter code, there’d be 26*26 or 26^2 ways I could do so.

If I wanted to make a three-letter code, there’d be 26*26*26, or 26^3 ways I could so.

So the total number of codes I could make, given the conditions of the problem, would be 26 + 26^2 + 26^3. Hopefully, at this point, you notice two things. First, this arithmetic will be deeply unpleasant to do. Second, all of the answer choices have different units digits!

Now remember that 6 raised to any positive integer will always end in 6. So the units digit of 26 is 6, and the units digit of 26^2 is 6 and the units digit of 26^3 is also 6. Therefore, the units digit of 26 + 26^2 + 26^3 will be the same as the units digit of 6 + 6 + 6. Because 6 + 6 + 6 = 18, our answer will end in an 8. The only possibility here is E. Pretty nifty.

Takeaway: Painful arithmetic can always be avoided on the GMAT. When calculating large numbers, note that we can quickly find the units digit with minimal effort. If all the answer choices have different units digits, the question writer is blatantly telegraphing how to approach this problem.

*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 written by him here.*

The post How to Use Units Digits to Avoid Doing Painful Calculations on the GMAT appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post Quarter Wit Quarter Wisdom: What is Your Favorite Number? appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>*“ The best number is 73. Why? 73 is the 21st prime number. Its mirror, 37, is the 12th and its mirror, 21, is the product of multiplying 7 and 3… and in binary 73 is a palindrome, 1001001, which backwards is 1001001.”*

Though Sheldon’s logic is infallible, my favorite number is 1001 because it has a special role in standardized tests.

1001 is 1 more than 1000 and hence, is sometimes split as (1000 + 1). It sometimes appears in the a^2 – b^2 format such as 1001^2 – 1, and its factors are 7, 11 and 13 (not the factors we usually work with).

Due to its unusual factors and its convenient location (right next to 1000), it could be a part of some tough-looking GMAT questions and should be remembered as a “special” number. Let’s look at a question to understand how to work with this number.

*Which of the following is a factor of 1001^(32) – 1 ?*

*(A) 768*

*(B) 819*

*(C) 826*

*(D) 858*

*(E) 924*

Note that 1001 is raised to the power 32. This is not an exponent we can easily handle. If we try to use a binomial here and split 1001 into (1000 + 1), all we will achieve is that upon expanding the given expression, 1 will be cancelled out by -1 and all other terms will have 1000 in common. None of the answer choices are factors of 1000, however, so we must look for some other factor of 1001^(32) – 1.

Without a calculator, it is not possible for us to find the factors of 1001^(32) – 1, but we do know the prime factors of 1001 and hence, the prime factors of 1001^32. We may not be able to say which numbers are factors of 1001^(32) – 1, but we will be able to say which numbers are certainly not factors of this!

Let me explain:

1001 = 7 * 11 * 13 (Try dividing 1001 by 7 and you’ll get 143. 143 is divisible by 11, giving you 13.)

1001^32 = 7^32 * 11^32 * 13^32

Now, what can we say about the prime factors of 1001^(32) – 1? Whatever they are, they are certainly not 7, 11 or 13 – two consecutive integers cannot have any common prime factor (discussed here and continued here).

Now look at the answer choices and try dividing each by 7:

(A) 768 – Not divisible by 7

(B) 819 – Divisible by 7

(C) 826 – Divisible by 7

(D) 858 – Not divisible by 7

(E) 924 – Divisible by 7

Options B, C and E are eliminated. They certainly cannot be factors of 1001^(32) – 1 since they have 7 as a prime factor, and we know 1001^(32) – 1 cannot have 7 as a prime factor.

Now try dividing the remaining options by 11:

(A) 768 – Not divisible by 11

(D) 858 – Divisible by 11

D can also be eliminated now because it has 11 as a factor. By process of elimination, the answer is A; it must be a factor of 1001^(32) – 1.

I hope you see how easily we used the factors of 1001 to help us solve this difficult-looking question. And yes, another attractive feature of 1001 – it is a palindrome in the decimal representation itself!

*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: What is Your Favorite Number? appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post GMAT Tip of the Week: How to Avoid GMAT (and Pokemon Go) Traps appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>And **that** is why Pokemon Go is responsible for an ever-important GMAT lesson.

Perhaps most newsworthy about Pokemon Go these days is the dangerous and improper places that it has led its avid users. On the improper side, such solemn and dignified places as the national Holocaust Museum and Arlington National Cemetery have had to actively prohibit gamers from descending upon mourners/commemorators while playing the game. And as for danger, there have been several instances of thieves luring gamers into traps and therefore robbing them of valuable (if you’re playing the game, you definitely have a smartphone) items.

And the GMAT can and will do the same thing.

How?

If you’re reading this on our GMAT blog, you’ve undoubtedly already learned that, on Data Sufficiency problems, you cannot assume that a variable is positive, or that it is an integer. But think about what makes Pokemon Go users so vulnerable to being lured into a robbery or to losing track of basic human decency. They’re so invested in the game that they lose track of the situations they’re being lured into.

Similarly, the most dangerous GMAT traps are those for which you should absolutely know better, but the testmaker has gotten your mind so invested in another “game” that you lose track of something basic. Consider the example:

*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*

Statement 1 is clearly sufficient. Since y is odd, and an integer, and the product of integers x and y is an even integer, that means that x must be even. And since x also has to be prime (which is how you know it’s an integer, too), the only even prime is 2, making x = 2.

From there your mind is fixated on the game. You can quickly see that in that case y = 111 and x = 2. Which you then have to forget about as you attack Statement 2. But here’s the reason that less than 25% of users in the Veritas Prep Question Bank get this right, while nearly half incorrectly choose D. Statement 1 has gotten your mind fixated on the even/odd/prime game, meaning that you may only be thinking about integers (and positive integers at that) at this point.

That y is a 3-digit number DOES NOT mean that it has to be 111. It could be -111 (making x = -2) or 333 (making x = 2/3). So only Statement 1 alone is sufficient, but the larger lesson is more important. Just like Pokemon Go has the potential to pollute your mind and have you see the real world through its “enhanced reality” lens, so does a statement that satisfies your intellect (“Ah, 2 is the only even prime number!”) give you just enough tunnel vision that you make poor decisions and fall for traps.

The secret here is that almost no one scoring above a 500 carries over all of Statement 1 (“Oh, well I already know that x = 2!”) – a total rookie mistake. It’s that Statement 1 got you fixated on definitions of types of integers (prime, even, odd) and therefore got your mind looking through the “enhanced reality” of integers-only.

The lesson? Much like Pokemon Go, the GMAT has tools to get you so invested in a particular facet of a game that you lose your universal awareness of your surroundings. Know that going in – that you have to consciously step back from that enhanced reality you’ve gained after Statement 1 and look at the whole picture. So take a lesson from Pokemon Go and know when to stop and step back.

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

*By Brian Galvin.*

The post GMAT Tip of the Week: How to Avoid GMAT (and Pokemon Go) Traps appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post How to Approach Difficult GMAT Problems appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>One of my main goals in teaching a class is to persuade everyone that this is not, in fact, how hard questions work on this test. Hard questions don’t ask you do to something you don’t know how to do. Rather, they’re cleverly designed to provoke an anxiety response that makes it difficult to realize that you do know exactly how to solve the problem.

Take this official question, for example:

*Let a, b, c and d be nonzero real numbers. If the quadratic equation ax(cx + d) = -b(cx +d) is solved for x, which of the following is a possible ratio of the 2 solutions?*

*A) **–ab/cd*

*B) –ac/bd*

*C) –ad/bc*

*D) ab/cd*

*E) ad/bc*

Most students see this and panic. Often, they’ll start by multiplying out the left side of the equation, see that the expression is horrible (acx^2 + adx), and take this as evidence that this question is beyond their skill level. And, of course, the question was designed to elicit precisely this response. So when I do this problem in class, I always start by telling my students, much to their surprise, that every one of them already knows how to do this. They’ve just succumbed to the question writer’s attempt to convince them otherwise.

So let’s start simple. I’ll write the following on the board: xy = 0. Then I’ll ask what we know about x or y. And my students shrug and say x or y (or both) is equal to 0. They’ll also wonder what on earth such a simple identity has to do with the algebraic mess of the question they’d been struggling with.

I’ll then write this: zx + zy = 0. Again, I’ll ask what we know about the variables. Most will quickly see that we can factor out a “z” and get z(x+y) = 0. And again, applying the same logic, we see that one of the two components of the product must equal zero – either z = 0 or x + y = 0.

Next, I’ll ask if they would approach the problem any differently if I’d given them zx = -zy – they wouldn’t.

Now it clicks. We can take our initial equation in the aforementioned problem: ax(cx +d) = -b(cx+d), and see that we have a ‘cx + d’ on both sides of the equation, just as we’d had a “z” on both sides of the previous example. If I’m able to get everything on one side of the equation, I can factor out the common term.

Now ax(cx +d) = -b(cx+d) becomes ax(cx +d) + b(cx+d) = 0.

Just as we factored out a “z” in the previous example, we can factor out “cx + d” in this one.

Now we have (cx + d)(ax + b) = 0.

Again, if we multiply two expressions to get a product of zero, we know that at least one of those expressions must equal 0. Either cx + d = 0 or ax + b = 0.

If cx + d = 0, then x = -d/c.

If ax + b = 0, then x = -b/a.

Therefore, our two possible solutions for x are –d/c and –b/a. So, the ratio of the two would simply be (-d/c)/(-b/a). Recall that dividing by a fraction is the equivalent of multiplying by the reciprocal, so we’re ultimately solving for (-d/c)(-a/b). Multiplying two negatives gives us a positive, and we end up with da/cb, which is equivalent to answer choice E.

Takeaway: Anytime you see something on the GMAT that you think you don’t know how to do, remind yourself that the question was designed to create this false impression. You know how to do it – don’t hesitate to dive in and search for how to apply this knowledge.

*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 written by him here.*

The post How to Approach Difficult GMAT Problems appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Attacking Gerunds on the GMAT! appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>A Verbal is a verb that acts as a different part of speech – not as a verb.

There are three types of verbals:

- Infinitives – these take the form of “to + verb”
- Gerunds – these are the “-ing” form of the verb
- Participles – these can take the “-ing,” “-ed,” “-en” etc. forms

Gerunds end in “-ing” and act as nouns in the sentence. They can act as a subject, direct object, subject complement or object of a preposition. For example:

*Running a marathon is very difficult.* – Subject

*I love swimming.* – Direct object

*The activity I enjoy the most is swimming.* – Subject complement

*She thanked me for helping her.* – Object of a preposition

You don’t have to identify the part of speech the gerund represents in a sentence; you just need to identify whether a verb’s “-ing” form is being used as a gerund and evaluate whether it is being used correctly.

A sentence could also use a gerund phrase that begins with a gerund, such as, “Swimming in the morning is exhilarating.”

Let’s take a look at a couple of official questions now:

*A recent study has found that within the past few years, many doctors had elected early retirement rather than face the threats of lawsuits and the rising costs of malpractice insurance.*

*(A) had elected early retirement rather than face*

*(B) had elected early retirement instead of facing*

*(C) have elected retiring early instead of facing*

*(D) have elected to retire early rather than facing*

*(E) have elected to retire early rather than face*

Upon reading the original sentence, we see that there is a gerund phrase here – “rising costs of malpractice insurance” – which is parallel to the noun “threat of lawsuits.”

The two are logically parallel too, since there are two aspects that the doctors do not want to face: rising costs and the threat of lawsuits.

Note, however, that they are not logically parallel to “face.” Hence, the use of the form “facing” would not be correct, since it would put “facing” and “rising” in parallel. So answer choices B, C and D are incorrect.

Actually, “retire” and “face” are logically parallel so they should be grammatically parallel, too. Answer choice E has the two in parallel in infinitive form – to retire and (to is implied here) face are in parallel.

Obviously, there are other decision points to take note of here, mainly the question of “had elected” vs. “have elected.” The use of “had elected” will not be correct here, since we are not discussing two actions in the past occurring at different times. Therefore, the correct answer is E.

Take a look at one more:

*In virtually all types of tissue in every animal species dioxin induces the production of enzymes that are the organism’s trying to metabolize, or render harmless, the chemical that is irritating it.*

*(A) trying to metabolize, or render harmless, the chemical that is irritating it*

*(B) trying that it metabolize, or render harmless, the chemical irritant*

*(C) attempt to try to metabolize, or render harmless, such a chemical irritant*

*(D) attempt to try and metabolize, or render harmless, the chemical irritating it*

*(E) attempt to metabolize, or render harmless, the chemical irritant*

Notice the use of the gerund “trying” in answer choice A. “Organism’s” is in possessive form and acts as an adjective for the noun verbal “trying.” Usually, with possessives, a gerund does not work. We need to use a noun only. With this in mind, answer choices A and B will not work.

The other three options replace “trying” with “attempt” and hence correct this error, however options C and D use the redundant “attempt to try.” The use of “attempt” means “try,” so there is no need to use both. Option E corrects this problem, so it is our correct answer.

Unlike participles, which can be a bit confusing, gerunds are relatively easy to understand and use. Feeling more confident about them now?

*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: Attacking Gerunds on the GMAT! appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post How to Reach a 99th Percentile GMAT Score Using No New Academic Strategies appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>His story is a fairly typical one: like the vast majority of GMAT test-takers, he enrolled in the class looking to hit a 700. His scores improved steadily throughout the course, and when he took the test the first time, he’d received a 720, which was in line with his last two practice exams. After he finished the official test, he called me – both because he was feeling pretty good about his score but also because a part of him was sure he could do better.

My feeling at the time was that there really wasn’t any pressing need for a retake: a 720 is a fantastic score, and once you hit that level of success, the incremental gains of an improvement begin to suffer from the law of diminishing returns. Still, when you’re talking about the most competitive MBA programs, you want any edge you can get. Moreover, he’d already made up his mind. He wanted to retake.

Part of his decision was rooted in principle. He was sure he could hit the 99^{th} percentile, and he wanted to prove it to himself. The problem, he noted, was that he’d already mastered the test’s content. So if there was nothing left for him to learn, how did he jump to the 99^{th} percentile?

The answer can be found in the vast body of literature enumerating the psychological variables that influence test scores. We like to think of tests as detached analytic tools that measure how well we’ve mastered a given topic. In reality, our mastery of the content is one small aspect of performance.

Many of us know this from experience – we’ve all had the experience of studying hard for a test, feeling as though we know everything cold, and then ending up with a score that didn’t seem to reflect how well we’d learned the material. After I looked at the research, it was clear that the two most important psychological variables were 1) confidence and 2) how well test-takers managed test anxiety. (And there’s every reason to believe that those two variables are interconnected.)

I’ve written in the past about how a mindfulness meditation practice can boost test day performance. I’ve also written about how perceiving anxiety as excitement, rather than as a nefarious force that needs to be conquered, has a similarly salutary effect. Recently I came across a pair of newer studies.

In one, researchers found that when students wrote in their journals for 10 minutes about their test-taking anxiety the morning of their exams, their scores went up substantially. In another, the social psychologist Amy Cuddy found that body language had a profound impact on performance in all sorts of domains. For example, her research has revealed that subjects who assumed “power poses” for two minutes before a job interview projected more confidence during the interview and were better able to solve problems than a control group that assumed more lethargic postures. (To see what these power poses look like, check out Cuddy’s fascinating Ted talk here.) Moreover, doing power poses actually created a physiological change, boosting testosterone and reducing the stress hormone Cortisol.

Though her research wasn’t targeted specifically at test-takers, there’s every reason to believe that there would be a beneficial effect for students who practiced power poses before an exam. Many teachers acquainted with Cuddy’s research now recommend that their students do this before tests.

So the missing piece of the puzzle for my student was simply confidence. His strategies hadn’t changed. His knowledge of the core concepts was the same. The only difference was his psychological approach. So now I’m recommending that all of my students do the following to cultivate an ideal mindset for producing their best possible test scores:

- Perform mindfulness meditation for the two weeks leading up to the exam.
- Reframe test-day anxiety as excitement.
- Spend 10 minutes the morning of the test writing in a journal.
- Practice two minutes of power poses in the waiting room before sitting for the exam and between the Quant and Verbal section.

*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 written by him here.*

The post How to Reach a 99th Percentile GMAT Score Using No New Academic Strategies appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post How to Go From a 48 to 51 in GMAT Quant – Part VII appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>- Uses holistic, big-picture methods to solve Quant questions.
- Handles questions he or she finds difficult in a timely manner.

We have been discussing holistic methods on this blog for a long time now and will continue discussing them. (Before you continue reading, be sure to check out parts I, II, III, IV, V and VI of this series.)

Today we will focus on “handling the hard questions in a timely manner.” Note that we do not say “solving the hard questions in a timely manner.” Occasionally, one might be required to make a quick call and choose to guess and move on – but again, that is not the focus of this post. We are actually going to talk about the “lightbulb” moment that helps us save on time. There are many such moments for the 51 level test-taker – in fact, the 51 scorers often have time left over after attempting all these questions.

Test takers at the 48 level will also eventually reach the same conclusions but might need much more time. That will put pressure on them the next time they look at the ticking clock, and once their cool is lost, “silly errors” will start creeping in. So it isn’t about just that one question – one can end up botching many other questions too.

There are many steps that can be easily avoided by a lightbulb moment early on. This is especially true for Data Sufficiency questions.

Let’s take an official example:

*Pam owns an inventory of unopened packages of corn and rice, which she has purchased for $17 and $13 per package, respectively. How many packages of corn does she have ?*

*Statement 1: She has $282 worth of packages.*

*Statement 2: She has twice as many packages of corn as of rice.*

A high scorer will easily recognize that this question is based on the concept of “integral solutions to an equation in two variables.” Since, in such real world examples, x and y cannot be negative or fractional, these equations usually have a finite number of solutions.

After we find one solution, we will quickly know how many solutions the equation has, but getting the first set of values that satisfy the equation requires a little bit of brute force.

The good thing here is that this is a Data Sufficiency question – you don’t need to find the actual solution. The only thing we need is to establish that there is a single solution only. (Obviously, there has to be a solution since Pam does own $282 worth of packages.)

So, the test-taker will start working on finding the first solution (using the method discussed in this post). We are told:

Price of a packet of corn = $17

Price of a packet of rice = $13

Say Pam has “x” packets of corn and “y” packets of rice.

*Statement 1: She has $282 worth of packages*

Using Statement 1, we know that 17x + 13y = 282.

We are looking for the integer values of x and y.

If x = 0, y will be 21.something (not an integer)

If x = 1, y = 20.something

If x = 2, y = 19.something

If x = 3, y = 17.something

This is where the 51 level scorer stops because they never lose sight of the big picture. The “lightbulb” switches on, and now he or she knows that there will be only one set of values that can satisfy this equation. Why? Because y will be less than 17 in the first set of values that satisfies this equation. So if we want to get the next set that satisfies, we will need to subtract y by 17 (and add 13 to x), which will make y negative.

So in any case, there will be a unique solution to this equation. We don’t actually need to find the solution and hence, nothing will be gained by continuing these calculations. Statement 1 is sufficient.

*Statement 2: She has twice as many packages of corn as of rice.*

Statement 2 gives us no information on the total number of packages or the total amount spent. Hence, we cannot find the total number of packages of corn using this information alone. Therefore, our answer is A.

I hope you see how you can be alert to what you want to handle these Quant questions in a timely manner.

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

*GMAT** for Veritas Prep and regularly participates in content development projects such as this blog!*

The post How to Go From a 48 to 51 in GMAT Quant – Part VII appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>The post GMAT Tip of the Week: The Overly Specific Question Stem appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>And think about it, what if those questions were more specific: “Are you in a melancholy mood today?” “Are you and Josh going to dinner at Don Antonio’s tonight and ordering table-side guacamole?” “Do the Cubs play at 7:05 tonight on WGN?” If someone is asking those questions instead, you’re probably a bit suspicious. Why so specific? What’s your angle?

The same is true on the GMAT. Most of the question stems you see are relatively generic: “What is the value of x?” “Which of the following would most weaken the author’s argument?” So when the question stem get a little too specific, you should become a bit suspicious. What’s the test going for there? Why so specific?

The overly-specific Critical Reasoning question stem is a great example. Consider the problem:

*Raisins are made by drying grapes in the sun. Although some of the sugar in the grapes is caramelized in the process, nothing is added.*

* Moreover, the only thing removed from the grapes is the water that evaporates during the drying, and water contains no calories or nutrients.*

* The fact that raisins contain more iron per food calorie than grapes do is thus puzzling.*

**Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain why raisins contain more iron per calorie than do grapes?**

*(A) Since grapes are bigger than raisins, it takes several bunches of grapes to provide the same amount of iron as a handful of raisins does.*

* (B) Caramelized sugar cannot be digested, so its calories do not count toward the food calorie content of raisins.*

* (C) The body can absorb iron and other nutrients more quickly from grapes than from raisins because of the relatively high water content of grapes.*

* (D) Raisins, but not grapes, are available year-round, so many people get a greater share of their yearly iron intake from raisins than from grapes.*

* (E) Raisins are often eaten in combination with other iron-containing foods, while grapes are usually eaten by themselves.*

Look at that question stem: a quick scan naturally shows you that you need to explain/resolve a paradox, but the question goes into even more detail for you. It reaffirms the exact nature of the paradox – it’s not about “iron,” but instead that that raisins contain more iron **per calorie** than grapes do. By adding that extra description into the question stem, the testmaker is practically yelling at you, “Make sure you consider calories…don’t just focus on iron!” And therefore, you should be prepared for the correct answer B, the only one that addresses calories, and deftly avoid answers A, C, D, and E, which all focus only on iron (and do so tangentially to the paradox).

Strategically speaking, if a Critical Reasoning question stem gets overly specific, you should pay particular attention to the specificity there…it’s most likely directing you to the operative portion of the argument.

Overly specific questions are most helpful in Data Sufficiency questions (and that same logic will help on Problem Solving too, as you’ll see). The testmaker knows that you’ve trained your entire algebraic life to solve for individual variables. So how can a question author use that lifetime of repetition against you? By asking you to solve for a specific combination that doesn’t require you to find the individual values. Consider this example, which appears courtesy the Official Guide for GMAT Quantitative Review:

*If x^2 + y^2 = 29, what is the value of (x – y)^2?*

*(1) xy = 10*

* (2) x = 5*

Two major clues should stand out to you that you need to Leverage Assets on this problem. For one, using both statements together (answer choice C) is dead easy. If xy = 10 and x = 5 then y = 2 and you can solve for any combination of x and y that anyone could ever ask for. But secondly and more subtly, the question stem should jump out as a classic way-too-specific, Leverage Assets question stem. They asked for a really, really specific value: (x – y)^2.

Now, immediately upon seeing that specificity you should be thinking, “That’s too specific…there’s probably a way to solve for that exact value without getting x and y individually.” That thought process alone tells you where to spend your time – you want to really leverage Statement 1 to try to make it work alone.

And if you’re still unconvinced, consider what the specificity does: the “squared” portion removes the question of negative vs. positive from the debate, removing one of the most common reasons that a seemingly-sufficient statement just won’t work. And, furthermore, the common quadratic (x – y)^2 shares an awful lot in common with the x^2 and y^2 elsewhere in the question stem. If you expand the parentheses, you have “What is x^2 – 2xy + y^2?” meaning that you’re already 2/3 of the way there (so to speak), since they’ve spotted you the sum x^2 + y^2.

The important strategy here is that the overly-specific question stem should scream “LEVERAGE ASSETS” and “You don’t need to solve for x and y…there’s probably a way to solve directly for that exact combination.” Since you know that you’re solving for the expanded x^2 – 2xy + y^2, and you already know that x^2 + y^2 = 29, you’re really solving for 29 – 2xy. Since you know from Statement 1 that xy = 20, then 29 – 2xy will be 29 – 2(10), which is 9.

Statement 1 alone is sufficient, even though you don’t know what x and y are individually. And one of the major signals that you should recognize to help you get there is the presence of an overly specific question stem.

So remember, in a world of generic questions, the oddly specific question should arouse a bit of suspicion: the interrogator is up to something! On the GMAT, you can use that to your advantage – an overly specific Critical Reasoning question usually tells you exactly which keywords are the most important, and an overly specific Data Sufficiency question stem begs for you to leverage assets and find a way to get the most out of each statement.

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

*By Brian Galvin.*

The post GMAT Tip of the Week: The Overly Specific Question Stem appeared first on Veritas Prep Blog.

]]>