Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Be Tolerant Towards Pronoun Ambiguity on the GMAT

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomWe encounter many different types of pronoun errors on the GMAT Verbal Section. Some of the most common errors include:

Using a pronoun without an antecedent. For example, the sentence, “Although Jack is very rich, he makes poor use of it,” is incorrect because “it” has no antecedent. The antecedent should instead be “money” or “wealth.”

Error in matching the pronoun to its antecedent in number and gender. For example, the sentence, “Pack away the unused packets, and save it for the next game,” is incorrect because the antecedent of “it” is referring to “unused packets,” which is plural.

Using a nominative/objective case pronoun when the antecedent is possessive. For example, the sentence, “The client called the lawyer’s office, but he did not answer,” is incorrect because the antecedent of “he” should be referring to “lawyer,” but it appears only in the possessive case. Official GMAT questions will not give you this rule as the only decision point between two options.

But note that the rules governing pronoun ambiguity are not as strict as other rules! Pronoun ambiguity should be the last decision point for eliminating an option after we have taken care of SV agreements, tenses, modifiers, parallelism etc.

Every sentence that has two nouns before a pronoun does not fall under the “pronoun ambiguity error” category. If the pronoun agrees with two nouns in number and gender, and both nouns could be the antecedent of the pronoun, then there is a possibility of pronoun ambiguity. But in other cases, logic can dictate that only one of the nouns can really perform (or receive) an action, and so it is logically clear to which noun the pronoun refers.

For example, “Take the bag out of the car and get it fixed.”

What needs to get fixed? The bag or the car? Either is possible. Here we have a pronoun ambiguity, but it is highly unlikely you will see something like this on the GMAT.

A special mention should be made here about the role nouns play in the sentence. Often, a pronoun which acts as the subject of a clause refers to the noun which acts as a subject of the previous clause. In such sentences, you will often find that the antecedent is unambiguous. Similarly, if the pronoun acts as the direct object of a clause, it could refer to the direct object of the  previous clause. If the pronoun and its antecedent play parallel roles, a lot of clarity is added to the sentence. But it is not necessary that the pronoun and its antecedent will play parallel roles.

Let’s look at a different example, “The car needs to be taken out of the driveway and its brakes need to get fixed.”

Here, obviously the antecedent of “its” must be the car since only it has brakes, not the driveway. Besides, the car is the subject of the previous clause and “its” refers to the subject. Hence, this sentence would be acceptable.

A good rule of thumb would be to look at the options. If no options sort out the pronoun issue by replacing it with the relevant noun, just forget about pronoun ambiguity. If there are options that clarify the pronoun issue by replacing it with the relevant noun, consider all other grammatical issues first and then finally zero in on pronoun ambiguity.

Let’s take a quick look at some official GMAT questions involving pronouns now:

Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers provide workers with unpaid leave so as to care for sick or newborn children. 

(A) provide workers with unpaid leave so as to 
(B) to provide workers with unpaid leave so as to 
(C) provide workers with unpaid leave in order that they 
(D) to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can 
(E) provide workers with unpaid leave and 

The answer is (D). Why? The correct sentence would use “to provide” (not “provide”) and “so that” (not “so as to”), and should read, “Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can care for sick or newborn children.” In this sentence, “they” logically refers to “workers.” Even though “they” could refer to employers, too, after you sort out the rest of the errors, you are left with (D) only, hence answer must be (D).

Let’s look at another question:

While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they are potentially devastating for homeowners, whose equity – in many cases representing a life’s savings – can plunge or even disappear.

(A) they are potentially devastating for homeowners, whose
(B) they can potentially devastate homeowners in that their
(C) for homeowners they are potentially devastating, because their
(D) for homeowners, it is potentially devastating in that their
(E) it can potentially devastate homeowners, whose

The correct answer is (A). The correct sentence should read, “While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they are potentially devastating for homeowners, whose equity – in many cases representing a life’s savings – can plunge or even disappear.” The pronoun “they” logically refers to “depressed property values.” Both the pronoun and its antecedent serve as subjects in their respective clauses, so the pronoun antecedent is quite clear.

One more question:

Although Napoleon’s army entered Russia with far more supplies than they had in their previous campaigns, it had provisions for only twenty-four days. 

(A) they had in their previous campaigns 
(B) their previous campaigns had had 
(C) they had for any previous campaign 
(D) in their previous campaigns 
(E) for any previous campaign

The correct answer is (E). The correct sentence should read, “Although Napoleon’s army entered Russia with far more supplies than for any previous campaign, it had provisions for only twenty-four days.”

The pronoun “it” logically refers to “Napolean’s army” and not Russia. Both the pronoun and its antecedent serve as subjects in their respective clauses, so the pronoun antecedent is quite clear. Note that the pronoun and its antecedent are a part of the non-underlined portion of the sentence so we don’t need to worry about the usage here but it strengthens our understanding of pronoun ambiguity.

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have free online GMAT seminars running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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!

GMAT Tip of the Week: Ernie Els, The Masters, and the First Ten GMAT Questions

GMAT Tip of the WeekAt this weekend’s The Masters golf tournament, the most notable piece of news isn’t the leaderboard, but rather the guy least likely to get near it. Ernie Els set a record with a nine-stroke, quintuple bogey on his first hole of the tournament, effectively ending his tournament minutes after he began it. And in doing so, he also provided you with some insight into the “First Ten Questions” myth that concerns so many GMAT test-takers.

With 18 holes each day for 4 days (Quick mental math! 18×4 is the same as 9×8 – halve the first number and double the second to make it a calculation you know well – so that’s 72 holes), any one hole shouldn’t matter. So why was Els’ first hole such a catastrophe?

It forces him to be nearly perfect the rest of the tournament, because he’s playing at such a disadvantage.

Meanwhile, Day 1 leader Jordan Spieth shot par (“average”) his first few holes and Rory McElroy, in second place at the end of the day, bogeyed (one stroke worse than average) a total of four holes on day one. The leaders were far from perfect themselves – another important lesson for the GMAT – but by avoiding a disastrous start, they allowed themselves plenty of opportunities to make up for mistakes.

And that brings us to the GMAT. Everyone makes mistakes on the GMAT, and that often happens regardless of difficulty level. So if you’re shooting for a top score and you miss half of the first ten questions, you have a few problems to contend with.

For starters, you have to “get hot” here soon and go on a run of correct answers. Secondly, you now have a lot fewer problems available to go on that hot streak (there are only 27 more Quant or 31 more Verbal questions after the first ten). And finally, the scoring/delivery algorithm doesn’t see you as “elite” yet so the questions are going to be a little easier and less “valuable,” meaning that you’ll need to “get hot” both to prove to the computer that you belong at the top level and then to demonstrate that you can stay there.

That’s the Ernie Els problem – regardless of how good you are, you’re probably going to make mistakes, so when you force yourself to be nearly perfect on the “easier” problems you end up with a tricky standard to live up to. Even if you really should be scoring at the 700-level, you don’t have a 100% probability of answering every 500-level problem correctly. That may well be in the 90%+ range, and maybe your likelihood at the 600 level is 75 or 80%. Getting 7, 8, 9 problems right in a row is a tall order as you dig your way out of that hole.

So the first 10 problems ARE important, but not because they have that much more power over the rest of the test – it’s because the more of them you miss, the more unrealistically perfect you have to be. The key is to “not blow it” on the first 10, rather than to “do everything you can to get them all right,” which is the mindset that holds back plenty of test-takers.

Again take the Masters: the leaderboard on Thursday night is never that close to the leaderboard on Sunday evening. Very often it’s someone who starts well, but is a few strokes off the lead the first few days, who wins. The GMAT is similar: a lot can happen from questions 11 through 37 (or 41), so by no means can you celebrate victory a quarter of the way through. Your goal shouldn’t be to be perfect, but rather to get off to a good start. Getting  7 questions right and having sufficient time to complete the rest of the section is much, much better than getting 9 right but forcing yourself to rush later on.

Essentially, as Ernie Els and thousands of GMAT test-takers have learned the hard way, you won’t win it in the first quarter, but you can certainly lose it there.  As you budget your time for the first 10 questions of each section, take a few extra seconds to double-check your work and make sure you’re not making egregious mistakes, but don’t over-invest at the expense of the critical problems to come.

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, YouTubeGoogle+ and Twitter!

By Brian Galvin.

Use This Tip to Avoid Critical Reasoning Traps on the GMAT

GMAT TrapsWhen you’ve been teaching test prep for a while you begin to be able to anticipate the types of questions that will give your students fits. The reason isn’t necessarily because these questions are unusually hard in a conventional sense, but because embedded within these problems is a form of misdirection that is nearly impossible to resist. It’s often worthwhile to dissect these problems in greater detail to reveal some deeper truths about how the test works.

Here is a problem I knew I’d be asked about often the moment I saw it:

W, X, Y, and Z represent distinct digits such that WX * YZ = 1995. What is the value of W?

  1. X is a prime number
  2. Z is not a prime number

The first instinct for most students I work with is, “I’m told nothing about W in either statement. There have to be many possibilities, so each statement alone is not sufficient.” When this thought occurs to you during the test, it’s important to resist it. By this, I don’t mean that you should simply assume that you’re wrong – there likely will be times when your first instincts are correct. Instead, what I mean is that you should take a bit more time to prove your assumptions to yourself. If there really are many workable scenarios, it won’t take much time to find them.

First, whenever there is an unusually large number and we’re dealing with multiplication, we want to take the prime factorization of that large number so that we can work with that figure’s basic building blocks and make it more manageable. In this case, the prime factorization of 1995 is 3 * 5 * 7 * 19. (First we see that five is a factor of 1995 because 1995 = 5*399. Next, we see that 3 is a factor of 399, because the digits of 399 sum to a multiple of 3. Now we have 5 * 3 * 133. Last, we know that 133 = 7 * 19, because if there are twenty 7’s in 140, there must be nineteen 7’s in 133.)

Now we can use these building blocks to form two-digit numbers that multiply to 1995. Here is a list of two-digit numbers we can assemble from those prime factors:

3 * 5 = 15

3 * 7 = 21

3 * 19 = 57

5 * 7 = 35

5 * 19 = 95

These are our candidates for WX and YZ. There aren’t many possibilities for multiplying two of these two-digit numbers and still getting a product of 1995. In fact, there are only two: 95*21 = 1995 and 35*57 = 1995. But we’re told that each digit must be unique, so 35*57 can’t work, as two of our variables would equal 5. This means that we know, before we even look at the statements, that our two two-digit numbers are 95 and 21 – we just need to know which is which.

It’s possible that WX = 95 and YZ = 21, or WX = 21 and YZ = 95. That’s it. What at first appeared to be a very open-ended question actually has very few workable solutions. Now that we’ve established our sample space of possibilities, let’s examine the statements:

Statement 1: If we know X is prime, we know that WX cannot be 21, as X would be 1 in this scenario and 1 is not a prime number. This means that WX has to be 95, and thus we know for a fact that W = 9. This statement alone is sufficient to answer the question.

Statement 2: If we know that Z is not prime, we know that YZ cannot be 95, as Z would be 5 in this scenario and 5 is, of course, prime. Thus, YZ is 21 and WX is 95, and again, we know for a fact that W is 9, so this statement alone is also sufficient.

The answer is D, either statement alone is sufficient to answer the question, a result very much at odds with most test-taker’s initial instincts.

Takeaway: the GMAT is engineered to wrong-foot test-takers, using our instincts against us.  Rather than simply assuming our instincts are wrong – they won’t always be – we want to be methodical about proving our intuitions one way or another by confirming them in some instances, refuting them in others. By being thorough and methodical, we reduce the odds that we’ll step into one of the traps the question-writer has set for us and increase the odds that we’ll answer the question correctly.

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

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

Are There Set Rules for Answering GMAT Sentence Correction Questions?

SAT WorryThe other day I was working with a tutoring student on Sentence Correction when she expressed some understandable frustration: when we did Quantitative questions together, she said, she felt like she could rely on ironclad rules that never varied (the rules for exponents don’t change depending on the context of the problem, for example), but when we did Sentence Correction, the relevant rules at play in a given question seemed less obvious.

Was there a way, she wondered, to view Sentence Correction with the same unwavering consistency with which we view Quantitative questions? While I understand her frustration, the answer is, alas, an unqualified “no.” English is far too complex for us to boil down Sentence Correction to a series of stimulus-response reflexes. Context and logic always matter.

To see why we can’t go on autopilot during Sentence Correction questions, consider the following problem:

Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions. 

A) Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also

B) Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast), which gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also

C) The systematic clearing of forests in the United States, creating farmland (especially in the Northeast) and giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also

D) The systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also

E) The systematic clearing of forests in the United States not only created farmland (especially in the Northeast), giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it

If you fully absorbed the class discussion about the importance of parallel construction, you probably noticed an indelible parallel marker here: “not only.” Okay, you think. Any time I see not only x, I know but also y should show up later in the sentence.

This isn’t wrong, per se, but the construction “not only/but also” is only applicable in certain circumstances. So before we jump to the erroneous conclusion that this is the construction that is called for in this sentence, let’s examine its underlying logic in more detail.

Take the simple example, “On the way to work, I not only got stuck in traffic, but also….” Think about your expectations for what should come next in this sentence – getting stuck in traffic was the first unfortunate thing to happen to this hapless subject, and we’re expecting a second unfortunate event in the latter part of the sentence. Not only/but also is appropriate when we’re talking about similar things.

Now consider the construction. “On the way to work, I got stuck in traffic, but…” Now our expectations are markedly different – the second half of the sentence is going to contrast with the first. We’re expecting something different.

Let’s go back to our GMAT sentence. We’re comparing the consequences of the clearing of forests. First, the clearing “created farmland and gave consumers inexpensive houses” (good things). However, it also “caused erosion and deforested the region” (bad things). Because we’re comparing two very different consequences, the construction “not only/but also” – which is used to compare similar things – is inappropriate. Now we can safely eliminate answers A, B and E.

That leaves us with C and D. First, let’s examine C. Notice there’s a participial modifier in the middle of the sentence set off by commas, and a sentence should still be logical if we remove these modifiers. We would then be left with, “The systematic clearing of forests in the United States, but also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions.” This clearly doesn’t work – the initial subject (the systematic clearing) has no verb, so C is wrong. This leaves us with answer choice D, which is the correct answer.

Takeaway: though noticing common constructions on Sentence Correction problems can be helpful, we can never go on autopilot. Ultimately, context, logic, and meaning will always come into play. Before you select any answer, always ask yourself if the sentence is logically coherent before you select it. If you want to ace the GMAT, turning off your brain is not an option.

*GMATPrep 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 FacebookYouTubeGoogle+ and Twitter!

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

Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Using a Venn Diagram vs. a Double Set Matrix on the GMAT

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomCritics may have given a rotten rating to the recently released “Batman v. Superman” movie, but we sure can use it to learn a valuable GMAT lesson. A difficult decision point for GMAT test takers is picking the probable winner between Venn diagrams and Double Set Matrices for complicated sets questions. If that is true for you too, then the onscreen rivalry between Batman and Superman will help you remember this trick:

Venn diagrams are like Superman – all powerful. They can help you solve almost all questions involving either 2 or 3 overlapping sets. But then, there are some situations in which double set matrix method (aka Batman with his amazing weaponry) might be easier to use. It is possible to solve these questions using Venn diagrams, too, but it is more convenient to solve them using a Double Set Matrix.

We have discussed solving three overlapping sets using Venn diagrams here.

Today, we will look at the case in which using a Double Set Matrix is easier than using a Venn diagram – in instances where we have two sets of variables, such as English/Math and Middle School/High School, or Cake/Ice cream and Boys/Girls, etc.

Eventually, we will solve our question again using a Venn diagram, for those who like to use a single method for all similar questions. First, take a look at our question:

A business school event invites all of its graduate and undergraduate students to attend. Of the students who attend, male graduate students outnumber male undergraduates by a ratio of 7 to 2, and females constitute 70% of the group. If undergraduate students make up 1/6 of the group, which of the following CANNOT represent the number of female graduate students at the event?

(A) 18
(B) 27
(C) 36
(D) 72
(E) 180

To solve this problem using a Double Set Matrix, first jot down one set of variables as the row headings and the other as the column headings, as well as a row and column for “totals.” Now all you need to do is add in the information line by line as you read through the question.

“…male graduate students outnumber male undergraduates by a ratio of 7 to 2…
QWQW graph 1

 

 

“…females constitute 70% of the group.

Female students make up 70% of the group, which implies that male students (total of 9x) make up 30% of the group.

9x = (30/100)*Total Students

Total Students = 30x

Since 9x is the total number of male students while 30x is the total number of all students, the total number of female students must be 30x – 9x = 21x.

QWQW graph 2

 

 

If undergraduate students make up 1/6 of the group…

Undergrad students make 1/6 of the group, i.e. (1/6)*30x = 5x

If the total number of undergrad students is 5x and the number of male undergrad students is 2x, the number of female undergrad students must be 5x – 2x = 3x.

This implies that the number of graduate females must be 18x, since the total number of females is 21x.

QWQW graph 3

 

 

Therefore, the number of graduate females must be a multiple of 18. 27 is the only answer choice that is not a multiple of 18, so it cannot be the number of graduate females – therefore, our answer must be B.

Now, here is how Superman can rescue us in this question. An analysis similar to the one above will give us a Venn diagram which looks like this:

qwqw pic

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, we will get the same answer: the number of graduate females must be a multiple of 18. We know 27 is not a multiple of 18, so it cannot be the number of graduate females and therefore, our answer is still B.

Hopefully, next time you come across an overlapping sets question, you will know exactly who your superhero is!

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have free online GMAT seminars running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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!

GMAT Tip of the Week: Don’t Be the April Fool with Trap Answers!

GMAT Tip of the WeekToday, people across the world are viewing news stories and emails with a skeptical eye, on guard to ensure that they don’t get April fooled. Your company just released a press release about a new initiative that would dramatically change your workload? Don’t react just yet…it could be an April Fool’s joke.

But in case your goal is to leave that job for the greener pastures of business school, anyway, keep that April Fool’s Day spirit with you throughout your GMAT preparation. Read skeptically and beware of the way too tempting, way too easy answer.

First let’s talk about how the GMAT “fools” you. At Veritas Prep we’ve spent years teaching people to “Think Like the Testmaker,” and the only pushback we’ve ever gotten while talking with the testmakers themselves has been, “Hey! We’re not deliberately trying to fool people.”

So what are they trying to do? They’re trying to reward critical thinkers, and by doing so, there need to be traps there for those not thinking as critically. And that’s an important way to look at trap answers – the trap isn’t set in a “gotcha” fashion to be cruel, but rather to reward the test-taker who sees the too-good-to-be-true answer as an invitation to dig a little deeper and think a little more critically. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, and one examinee’s trap answer is another examinee’s opportunity to showcase the reasoning skills that business schools crave.

With that in mind, consider an example, and try not to get April fooled:

What is the greatest prime factor of 12!11! + 11!10! ?

(A) 2
(B) 7
(C) 11
(D) 19
(E) 23

If you’re like many – more than half of respondents in the Veritas Prep Question Bank – you went straight for the April Fool’s answer. And what’s even more worrisome is that most of those test-takers who choose trap answer C don’t spend very long on this problem. They see that 11 appears in both additive terms, see it in the answer choice, and pick it quickly. But that’s exactly how the GMAT fools you – the trap answers are there for those who don’t dig deeper and think critically. If 11 were such an obvious answer, why are 19 and 23 (numbers greater than any value listed in the expanded versions of those factorials 12*11*10*9…) even choices? Who are they fooling with those?

If you get an answer quickly it doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re wrong, but it should at least raise the question, “Am I going for the fool’s answer here?”. And that should encourage you to put some work in. Here, the operative verb even appears in the question stem – you have to factor the addition into multiplication, since factors are all about multiplication/division and not addition/subtraction. When you factor out the common 11!:

11!(12! + 10!)

Then factor out the common 10! (12! is 12*11*10*9*8… so it can be expressed as 12*11*10!):

11!10!(12*11 + 1)

You end up with 11!*10!(133). And that’s where you can check 19 and 23 and see if they’re factors of that giant multiplication problem. And since 133 = 19*7, 19 is the largest prime factor and D is, in fact, the correct answer.

So what’s the lesson? When an answer comes a little too quickly to you or seems a little too obvious, take some time to make sure you’re not going for the trap answer.

Consider this – there are only four real reasons that you’ll see an easy problem in the middle of the GMAT:

1) It’s easy. The test is adaptive and you’re not doing very well so they’re lobbing you softballs. But don’t fear! This is only one of four reasons so it’s probably not this!

2) Statistically it’s fairly difficult, but it’s just easy to you because it’s something you studied well for, or for which you had a great junior high teacher. You’re just that good.

3) It’s not easy – you’re just falling for the trap answer.

4) It’s easy but it’s experimental. The GMAT has several problems in each section called “pretest items” that do not count towards your final score. These appear for research purposes (they’re checking to ensure that it’s a valid, bias-free problem and to gauge its difficulty), and they appear at random, so even a 780 scorer will likely see a handful of below-average difficulty problems.

Look back at that list and consider which are the most important. If it’s #1, you’re in trouble and probably cancelling your score or retaking the test anyway. And for #4 it doesn’t matter – that item doesn’t count. So really, the distinction that ultimately matters for your business school future is whether a problem like the example above fits #2 or #3.

If you find an answer a lot more quickly than you think you should, use some of that extra time to make sure you haven’t fallen for the trap. Engage those critical thinking skills that the GMAT is, after all, testing, and make sure that you’re not being duped while your competition is being rewarded. Avoid being the April Fool, and in a not-too-distant September you’ll be starting classes at a great school.

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, YouTubeGoogle+ and Twitter!

By Brian Galvin.

Updated GMAT Score Cancellation and Reinstatement Policies: What This Means For You

GMAT Cancel ScoresGMAC has updated its score cancelation and reinstatement policies for GMAT test-takers. A full description of these changes is included in GMAC’s recently published blog article, but here are some highlights and guidance on what this means for future GMAT test-takers:

What is Changing?
If you took the GMAT and felt like you needed more time to decide whether or not to cancel your score, then you’ll be happy with GMAC’s new policy. Test-takers now have 5 years to reinstate their scores and 3 days to cancel them. Before this, test-takers had to be much more rushed in making their decisions, with only 60 days to reinstate their scores, and a mere 2 minutes to cancel them.

The cost of these actions is also much more forgiving: it is now only $50 to reinstate your score (compared to the previous $100 fee), however you will have to pay a fee of $25 to cancel your score if you choose to do so after leaving the test center.

What is NOT Changing?
GMAC has kept several of its cancelation and reinstatement policies intact. For example, it is still true that if you choose to cancel your score, no one but you will know about it. There is also still no fee to cancel your score at the test center, and the period you must wait to retake the GMAT is still 16 days.

Why Does This Matter?
Why do we even care about this change in the GMAC’s policies? Well for one, it allows for much more flexibility in the test-taking process, as test-takers

who choose to cancel their scores now have much more time to prepare for their next test administration. (No more scrambling to prepare for a retest in 16 days!) However, it is still important to remember that the GMAT retest policy still applies, in that you cannot take the GMAT more than 5 times in 12 months, so it is important to build a “buffer” into your prep schedule. If you test too close to an MBA application deadline, you won’t have time to retest.

These changes in policy also just go to show us that nothing in life is free (except canceling at the test center). If you want the convenience and luxury of having extra time to make your decisions, you’d better be ready to pay up for it. To minimize this cost, test-takers should have a target GMAT score in mind as well as a plan going into the test, and then actually stick to that plan upon receiving a final score. Think of this like buying an airline ticket – many airlines will let you hold a ticket for free, but it can cost an additional fee to hold it for up to a week. The same idea applies here. Additional time isn’t going to change your score and it shouldn’t impact what score you’re willing to accept, so have a game plan going into test day and stick to it to avoid unnecessary fees.

It is also worth noting that most business schools will still accept a candidate’s highest GMAT score (after all, it is in the school’s best interests to report having students with high average GMAT scores), so if you take the GMAT and score moderately higher than you did the last time you took the test, it may not be necessary to actually cancel your lower score. Talk to the schools to which you’re applying to understand the programs’ policies, but don’t overthink it. Unless there’s a significant gap between your old and new score (+100 points), or you achieved an extremely low score one of the times you took the test (below 500 points), save your money and keep all of your scores.

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

By Joanna Graham

What Makes GMAT Quant Questions So Hard?

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomWe know that the essentials of the GMAT Quant section are pretty simple: advanced topics such as derivatives, complex numbers, matrices and trigonometry are not included, while fundamentals we all learned from our high school math books are included. So it would be natural to think that the GMAT Quant section should not pose much of a problem for most test-takers (especially for engineering students, who have actually covered far more advanced math during their past studies).

Hence, it often comes as a shock when many test-takers, including engineering students, receive a dismal Quant score on the first practice test they take. Of course, with practice, they usually wise up to the treachery of the GMAT, but until then, the Quant section is responsible for many a nightmare!

Today, let’s see what kind of treachery we are talking about – problems like this make some people laugh out loud and others pull at their hair!

Is the product pqr divisible by 12?
Statement 1: p is a multiple of 3
Statement 2: q is a multiple of 4

This seems like an easy C (Statements 1 and 2 together are sufficient, but alone are not sufficient), doesn’t it? P is a multiple of 3 and q is a multiple of 4, so together, p*q would be a multiple of 3*4 = 12. If p * q is already a multiple of 12, then obviously it would seem that p*q*r would be a multiple of 12, too.

But here is the catch – where is it mentioned that r must be an integer? Just because p and q are integers (multiples of 3 and 4 respectively), it does not imply that r must also be an integer.

If r is an integer, then sure, p*q*r will be divisible by 12. Imagine, however, that p = 3, q = 4 and r = 1/12. Now the product p*q*r = 3*4*(1/12) = 1. 1 is not divisible by 12, so in this case, pqr is not divisible by 12. Hence, both statements together are not sufficient to answer the question, and our answer is in fact E!

This question is very basic, but it still tricks us because we want to assume that p, q and r are clean integer values.

Along these same lines, let’s try the another one:

If 10^a * 3^b * 5^c = 450^n, what is the value of c?
Statement 1: a is 1.
Statement 2:  b is 2.

The first thing most of us will do here is split 450 into its prime factors:

450 = 2 * 3^2 * 5^2

450^n = 2^n * 3^2n * 5^2n

And do the same thing with the left side of the equation:

10^a * 3^b * 5^c = 2^a * 3^b * 5^(a+c)

Bringing the given equation back, we get:

2^a * 3^b * 5^(a+c) = 2^n * 3^2n * 5^2n

Statement 1: a is 1.

Equating the power of 2 on both sides, we see that a = n = 1.

a + c = 2n (equating the power of 5 on both sides)

1 + c = 2

c = 1

Statement 2:  b is 2.

Equating the power of 3 on both sides, we see that b = 2n = 2, so n = 1.

If n = 1, a = 1 by equating the powers of 2 on both sides.

a + c = 2n (equating the power of 5 on both sides)

1 + c = 2

c = 1

So it seems that both statements are separately sufficient. But hold on – again, the variables here don’t need to be cleanly fitting integers. The variables could pan out the way discussed in our first problem, or very differently.

Say, n = 1. When Statement 1 gives you that a = 1, you get 10^1 * 3^b * 5^c = 450^1.

3^b * 5^c = 45

Now note that value of c depends on the value of b, which needn’t be 2.

If b  = 3, then 3^3 * 5^c = 45.

5^c = 45/27

C will take a non-integer value here.

c = .3174

The question does not mention that all variables are integers, therefore there are infinite values that c can take depending on the values of b. Similarly, we can see that Statement 2 alone is also not sufficient. Using both statements together, you will get:

2^a * 3^b * 5^(a+c) = 450^n

2^1 * 3^2 * 5^(1 + c) = 450^n

5^(1 + c) = 450^n/18

By now, you’ve probably realized that depending on the value of n, c can take infinite different values. If n = 1, c = 1. If n = 2, c = 4.8. And so on… We don’t need to actually find these values – it is enough to know that different values of n will give different values of c.

With this in mind, we can see that both statements together are not sufficient, and therefore our answer must be E.

Hopefully, in future, this sneaky trick will not get you!

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have free online GMAT seminars running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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!

New GMAT Undergraduate Pricing Initiative

featured_money@wdd2xIn an effort to attract more undergraduate test takers, GMAC is rolling out a tiered pricing structure for students who register for the GMAT before June 1, 2016 and complete the test by December 31, 2016.

While targeted undergrad outreach efforts and undergrad discounts on the GMAT aren’t new to GMAC, the scale and diversity in pricing is. (GMAC piloted discounting test registration fees a few years ago on select U.S. undergrad campuses as part of a partnership program with select test prep companies and universities.) But like any good sale, is the deal too good to be true?  Let’s take a closer look at the offers (and fine print):

Both options feature discounted registration fees, but limited score report options and more expensive additional score reports (ASRs). ASRs are currently $28 per report.

Option 1: $150 registration fee, No initial score reports (ASR: $50 each)

Option 2: $200 registration fee, 2 initial score reports (ASR: $50 each)

Option 3: $250 registration fee, 5 initial score reports (ASR: $28 each)**

**Current GMAT pricing

Keep in mind that the average GMAT test taker submits 2.7 score reports with their business school applications so GMAC is hoping to recover some of those initial cost savings down the road, but yes, that $50 ASR fee can create a little sticker shock.

So is there an upside to any of these options?

For students who aren’t thinking about grad school anytime soon and, more importantly, have time to prepare for the GMAT (think second-semester Seniors or students with a lighter course load), Option 1 does have a few merits. Because these students don’t have grad school or specific programs on their radar, the lack of score reports isn’t an issue. And since scores are good for five years, it gives students a chance to bank a good score early while not shelling out the full $250.

This is the population that GMAC is targeting with this promotion because the reality is most students will end up sending score reports to multiple programs. However, if the cost of an ASR increases down the road, at least this locks in a lower test fee and possibly a competitive ASR fee.

Students who are applying to a graduate program now (think Juniors or Seniors looking at a pre-work-experience programs) should definitely consider Option 2. Since these students already know which program they’re aiming for, the two free score reports at the test center are a bargain (and ultimately save the student $50).

What isn’t mentioned on the website but should be considered is the current GMAT registration fee of $250. This fee hasn’t changed in over a decade, and while GMAC hasn’t made any announcements about a price hike, it’s unreasonable to think that it’ll remain $250 forever. The odds of the fees increasing in the next  5- 10 years? Hard to say, but there’s likely some merit in locking in a lower priced test.

When you examine Option 3, or the current GMAT standard, you should also look at the GMAT’s primary competitor, the GRE, which is a more widely recognized brand at the undergrad level. ETS just increased GRE fees in the U.S. from $160 to $205 in January of 2016 (ETS does offer a reduced fee certificate to undergrads who meet certain criteria which reduces the cost by 50%). So by offering a variety of pricing options, GMAC is making the GMAT more financially competitive with the GRE.

Regardless of whether you take the GMAT or GRE, Veritas Prep is committed to helping you prepare to do your best on test day. You can find additional information about the GMAC tiered pricing here and information on Veritas Prep’s GMAT prep offerings here.  We also encourage students to sign up for one of our free online GMAT seminars, and to follow us on FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, and Twitter!

By Joanna Graham

Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Dealing with Tangents on the GMAT

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomConsidering a two dimensional figure, a tangent is a line that touches a curve at a single point.  Here are some examples of tangents:
QWQW 1

 


 

In each of these cases, the line touches the curve at a single point. In the case of a circle, when you draw the radius of the circle from the center to the point of contact with the tangent, the radius is perpendicular to the tangent (as demonstrated in the figure on the right, above). A question discussing this concept is given in our post here.

Today, we will look at a question involving a tangent to a parabola:

If f(x) = 3x^2 – tx + 5 is tangent to the x-axis, what is the value of the positive number t?

(A) 2√15
(B) 4√15
(C) 3√13
(D) 4√13
(E) 6√15

Let’s first try to understand what the question is saying.

f(x) is a tangent to the x-axis. We know that the x-axis is a straight line, so f(x) must be a curve. A quadratic equation, such as our given equation of f(x) = 3x^2 -tx +5, gives a parabola. Since the x^2 term in the equation is positive, the parabola would be facing upwards and touching the x-axis at a single point, such as:

QWQW 2

 

 

 

 

 

Since the parabola touches the x-axis in only one point, it means the quadratic has only one root, or in other words, the quadratic must be a perfect square.

Therefore, f(x) = 3x^2 – tx + 5 = √3(x)^2 – tx + (√5)^2

To get f(x) in the form a^2 – 2ab + b^2 = (a – b)^2,

tx = 2ab = (2√3)x * √5

t = 2√15

Note that if t takes this value, the quadratic will have only one root.

Plugging this value of t back into our equation, we will get: f(x) = √3(x)^2 – 2(√15)(x) + (√5)^2

f(x) = (√3)x – (√5)^2

We know that the root of f(x) is the point where the value of the y coordinate is 0. Therefore:

(√3)x – (√5)^2  = 0

x = (√5)/(√3)

At this x co-ordinate, the parabola will touch the x axis.

[This calculation was shown only to help you completely understand the question. We could have easily stopped at t = 2(√15).]

Therefore, our answer is A.

The question can be solved in various other ways – think of how, and write your thoughts in the comments below!

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have free online GMAT seminars running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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 GMAC Executive Assessment: Part 2

GMAT Select Section Order PilotIn our first post, we broke down the new GMAC® Executive Assessment which provides EMBA candidates with an alternative testing option to the GMAT. While on paper, the exam might resemble a “mini-GMAT,” a deeper dive reveals an assessment with GMAT roots, but a distinct personality of its own.

 
More Business Focus
A look at sample questions from the website suggests that the EA pulls from item pools that are similar, if not identical, to the GMAT. In fact, some questions seem to have more of a “business” feel compared to your traditional GMAT question. (The GMAT has long been touted as an exam that doesn’t reward or punish lack of a traditional business background, as it aims to test critical reasoning and higher order thinking skills that are industry-agnostic.)

This may be a coincidence, but one can’t ignore the fact that most EMBA candidates have significant work experience (10+ years typically) and most likely a stronger sense of business in general compared to their 24-year-old counterparts looking at full-time programs. Regardless, any leaning towards business (whether intentional or not) would likely be attractive to more EMBA candidates.

Integrated Reasoning Grows in Prominence
One other interesting aspect of the EA is the increased proportion of Integrated Reasoning (IR) questions. IR makes up exactly one-third of this assessment and is incorporated into the candidate’s total score. Conversely, IR is a small portion (30 minutes) of the GMAT exam. The GMAT quantitative and verbal sections are each 75 minutes in length, and the GMAT total score represents a combination of the quantitative and verbal sub-scores. GMAT IR scores are reported separately from the total score.

While GMAC has published survey research on the “relevance” of skills tested on IR, the deeper integration of IR into the EA assessment and total score seems to further support the notion that the skills tested are truly relevant and strong indicators of success in a graduate business program. And perhaps these skills are even more important at the EMBA level.

Pilot Program for Now
The Executive Assessment (EA) is currently in a Beta phase that will last at least 18 months (or a full admissions cycle and academic year) to allow for validity studies to be conducted. GMAC has long been committed to developing assessment products that are not only relevant, but valid predictors of success in a graduate management program. The six pilot programs were selected because they were willing to commit the necessary time, energy and resources to see this phase through.

The EA targets a different demographic than the GMAT (older, significant work experience, further removed from the undergrad experience) and the test doesn’t leverage computer-adaptive testing in the way that the current GMAT does. Thus, norms for this assessment will differ, further underscoring the importance of measuring exam outcomes against academic performance in an EMBA program.  At this time, there are no plans to add additional programs until after the Beta phase is complete.

Only “Modest Preparation” Required
One of the biggest differences between the EA and GMAT is the amount of preparation that GMAC is advocating for it. It’s no secret that candidates need to prepare for the GMAT, and GMAC survey research indicates that the average candidate spends between 60 and 90 days preparing for the GMAT.  However, the EA recognizes that candidates are less likely to have the bandwidth for preparation that traditional GMAT candidates might have.  The EA will help schools to differentiate competencies that are a little “rusty” versus those that are “ready” and enable them to prescribe pre-work to ensure all candidates begin their EMBA programs on an even playing field.

That being said, candidates looking to distinguish themselves from other applicants can certainly benefit from preparation. Given the overlap with GMAT content, leveraging current GMAT materials to gain a better understanding of question types is a good starting point.  Pacing, as always, will be paramount, and additional time and focus on IR will be crucial given its more significant role in the exam (and total score).

If you’re interested in learning more about GMAT preparation and customized options for EA preparation, please visit our GMAT Website or attend one of our upcoming free online GMAT seminars. And, be sure to follow us on FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, and Twitter!

By Joanna Graham

GMAT Tip of the Week: Your Mind Is Playing Tricks On You

GMAT Tip of the WeekOf all the song lyrics of all the hip hop albums of all time, perhaps the one that captures the difficulty of the GMAT the most comes from the Geto Boys:

It’s f-ed up when your mind is playing tricks on you.

The link above demonstrates a handful of ways that your mind can play tricks on you when you’re in the “fog of war” during the GMAT, but here, four Hip Hop Months later in the middle of yet another election season that has many Millennial MBA aspirants feeling the Bern, it’s time to detail one more. Consider this Critical Reasoning problem:

Among the one hundred most profitable companies in the United States, nearly half qualify as “socially responsible companies,” including seven of the top ten most profitable on that list. This designation means that these companies donate a significant portion of their revenues to charity; that they adhere to all relevant environmental and product safety standards; and that their hiring and employment policies encourage commitments to diversity, gender pay equality, and work-life balance.

Which of the following conclusions can be drawn based on the statements above?

(A) Socially responsible companies are, on average, more profitable than other companies.
(B) Consumers prefer to purchase products from socially responsible companies whenever possible.
(C) It is possible for any company to be both socially responsible and profitable.
(D) Companies do not have to be socially responsible in order to be profitable.
(E) Not all socially responsible companies are profitable.

How does your mind play tricks on you here? Check out these statistics from the Veritas Prep Practice Tests:

Socially responsible

When you look at the two most popular answer choices, there’s a stark difference in what they mean outside the context of the problem. The most popular – but incorrect – answer says what you want it to say. You want social responsibility to pay off, for companies to be rewarded for doing the right thing. But it’s the words that don’t appeal to your heart and/or conscience that are the most important on these problems, and the justification for “any company” to be both socially responsible and profitable isn’t there in the argument.

Sure, several companies in the top 10 and top 100 are both socially responsible and profitable, but ANY company means that if you pick any given company, that particular company has to be capable of both. And it may very well be that in certain industries, the profit margins are too slim for that to be possible.

Say, for example, that in one of the commodities markets there simply isn’t any brand equity for social responsibility, and the top competitors are so focused on pushing out competition that any cost outside of productivity would put a company into the red. It’s not a thought you necessarily want to have, but it’s a possible outcome given the prompt, and it invalidates answer (C). Since Inference answers MUST BE TRUE, C just doesn’t meet that standard.

Which brings you to D, the correct but unpopular answer. That’s not what your heart and conscience want to conclude at all – you’d love for there to be a world in which consumers will reject any products from companies that aren’t made by companies taking the moral high ground, but if you look specifically at the facts of the argument, 3 of the top 10 most profitable companies and more than half of the top 100 are not socially responsible. So answer choice D is airtight – it’s not what you want to hear, but it’s definitely true based on the argument.

The lesson? Once you get that MBA you have the opportunity to change the world, but while you’re in the GMAT test center doing Critical Reasoning problems, you can only draw conclusions based on the facts that they give you. Don’t let your outside opinions frame the way that you read the problem. If you know that you have some personal interest in the topic, that’s a sign that you’ll need to be even more literal about what’s written. Your mind can play tricks on you – as it did for nearly half of test-takers here – so know that on test day you have to get it under control.

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, YouTubeGoogle+ and Twitter!

By Brian Galvin.

2 Tips to Make GMAT Remainder Questions Easy

stressed-studentSeveral months ago, I wrote an article about remaindersBecause this concept shows up so often on the GMAT, I thought it would be useful to revisit the topic. At times, it will be helpful to know the kind of terminology we’re taught in grade school, while at other times, we’ll simply want to select simple numbers that satisfy the parameters of a Data Sufficiency statement.

So let’s explore each of these scenarios in a little more detail. A simple example can illustrate the terminology: if we divide 7 by 4, we’ll have 7/4 = 1 + ¾.

7, the term we’re dividing by something else, is called the dividend. 4, which is doing the dividing, is called the divisor. 1, the whole number component of the mixed fraction, is the quotient. And 3 is the remainder. This probably feels familiar.

In the abstract, the equation is: Dividend/Divisor = Quotient + Remainder/Divisor. If we multiply through by the Divisor, we get: Dividend = Quotient*Divisor + Remainder.

Simply knowing this terminology will be sufficient to answer the following official question:

When N is divided by T, the quotient is S and the remainder is V. Which of the following expressions is equal to N? 

A) ST
B) S + V
C) ST + V
D) T(S+V)
E) T(S – V) 

In this problem, N – which is getting divided by something else – is our dividend, T is the divisor, S is the quotient, and V is the remainder. Plugging the variables into our equation of Dividend = Quotient*Divisor + Remainder, we get N = ST + V… and we’re done! The answer is C.

(Note that if you forgot the equation, you could also pick simple numbers to solve this problem. Say N = 7 and T = 3. 7/3 = 2 + 1/3.  The Quotient is 2, and the remainder is 1, so V = 1. Now, if we plug in 3 for T, 2 for S, and 1 for V, we’ll want an N of 7. Answer choice C will give us an N of 7, 2*3 + 1 = 7, so this is correct.)

When we need to generate a list of potential values to test in a data sufficiency question, often a statement will give us information about the dividend in terms of the divisor and the remainder.

Take the following example: when x is divided by 5, the remainder is 4. Here, the dividend is x, the divisor is 5, and the remainder is 4. We don’t know the quotient, so we’ll just call it q. In equation form, it will look like this: x = 5q + 4. Now we can generate values for x by picking values for q, bearing in mind that the quotient must be a non-negative integer.

If q = 0, x = 4. If q = 1, x = 9. If q=2, x = 14. Notice the pattern in our x values: x = 4 or 9 or 14… In essence, the first allowable value of x is the remainder. Afterwards, we’re simply adding the divisor, 5, over and over. This is a handy shortcut to use in complicated data sufficiency problems, such as the following:

If x and y are integers, what is the remainder when x^2 + y^2 is divided by 5?

1) When x – y is divided by 5, the remainder is 1
2) When x + y is divided by 5, the remainder is 2

In this problem, Statement 1 gives us potential values for x – y. If we begin with the remainder (1) and continually add the divisor (5), we know that x – y = 1 or 6 or 11, etc. If x – y = 1, we can say that x = 1 and y = 0. In this case, x^2 + y^2 = 1 + 0 = 1, and the remainder when 1 is divided by 5 is 1. If x – y = 6, then we can say that x = 7 and y = 1. Now x^2 + y^2 = 49 + 1 = 50, and the remainder when 50 is divided by 5 is 0. Because the remainder changes from one scenario to another, Statement 1 is not sufficient alone.

Statement 2 gives us potential values for x + y. If we begin with the remainder (2) and continually add the divisor (5), we know that x + y = 2 or 7 or 12, etc. If x + y = 2, we can say that x = 1 and y = 1. In this case, x^2 + y^2 = 1 + 1 = 2, and the remainder when 2 is divided by 5 is 2. If x + y = 7, then we can say that x = 7 and y = 0. Now x^2 + y^2 = 49 + 0 = 49, and the remainder when 49 is divided by 5 is 4. Because the remainder changes from one scenario to another, Statement 2 is also not sufficient alone.

Now test them together – simply select one scenario from Statement 1 and one scenario from Statement 2 and see what happens. Say x – y = 1 and x + y = 7. Adding these equations, we get 2x = 8, or x = 4. If x = 4, y = 3. Now x^2 + y^2 = 16 + 9 = 25, and the remainder when 25 is divided by 5 is 0.

We need to see if this will ever change, so try another scenario. Say x – y = 6 and x + y = 12. Adding the equations, we get 2x = 18, or x = 9. If x =  9, y = 3, and x^2 + y^2 = 81 + 9 = 90. The remainder when 90 is divided by 5 is, again, 0. No matter what we select, this will be the case – we know definitively that the remainder is 0. Together the statements are sufficient, so the answer is C.

Takeaway: You’re virtually guaranteed to see remainder questions on the GMAT, so you want to make sure you have this concept mastered. First, make sure you feel comfortable with the following equation: Dividend = Divisor*Quotient + Remainder. Second, if you need to select values, you can simply start with the remainder and then add the divisor over and over again. If you internalize these two ideas, remainder questions will become considerably less daunting.

*GMATPrep questions 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 FacebookYouTubeGoogle+ and Twitter!

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

The GMAC Executive Assessment: A New Way to Evaluate EMBA Applicants

GMAT Select Section Order PilotImagine a world where you could take the GMAT, but it was over in 90 minutes, and no advanced preparation was required. It sounds too good to be true, but the Graduate Management Admission Council (GMAC®) launched a new product, the GMAC® Executive Assessment, on March 1 that is designed to give Executive MBA programs a new way to evaluate candidates.

EMBA programs have struggled with making standardized testing compulsory in recent years. Candidates typically have much more work experience than full-time or part-time applicants, and thus are further removed from an academic classroom experience (and often have even less time to prepare for and take a standardized test). The GMAC® Executive Assessment gives applicants another testing option that looks a lot like the GMAT, but may have an easier path to success.

Let’s take a closer look at how this is similar to and different from the GMAT:

Shorter Sections
The GMAC® Executive Assessment contains three (3) sections: Integrated Reasoning, Verbal and Quantitative. Each section is just 30 minutes long, and the exam is delivered on-demand at existing test centers around the globe. Scores are valid for 5 years, unofficial scores are provided at the test center upon completion, and the same basic registration guidelines hold true (compared to the GMAT exam). Candidates are required to register at least 24 hours in advance, ID requirements at the test center are the same as the GMAT, and while there is an on-screen calculator for IR, there isn’t one for the Quantitative section.

In terms of test structure, there are 40 questions: 12 Integrated Reasoning, 14 Verbal, and 14 Quantitative. Regarding pacing, there are no differences across Integrated Reasoning, but you do gain a little bit of time on the verbal and quantitative sections (compared to the GMAT). Also, the order of sections is slightly different than the GMAT, with Integrated Reasoning leading off, followed by Verbal and then Quantitative.

From a content perspective, the test seems to be consistent with current GMAT questions, but with a slightly more skewed focus towards business. If some of the practice questions posted by GMAC® look familiar, they are – they appeared in previous versions of the Official Guide which seems to suggest content that that is consistent with current GMAT questions.

Finally, once you start the test, it will be a race to the finish with no breaks between sections.

Bigger Price, Different Retake Policy
While the test is similar to the GMAT from a content perspective, there are definitely some significant differences. First, prepare yourself for a little sticker shock: you might think since you’re getting fewer questions and you’re in and out of the test center faster, there might be a discount, however, this shorter assessment will actually cost you more ($350, compared to $250 for the GMAT). However, there is no fee for rescheduling – unless you’re less than 24 hours from your appointment – or for additional score reports.

If you’re not happy with your score, you can re-test, but you can only do so once, so make sure you’re ready! Rather than waiting 16 days to re-test like the GMAT, the waiting period is only 24 hours.

Computer Adaptive? Yes, But…
This test is not computer adaptive in the way that the GMAT is, so your answer to a question does not dictate which question you’ll see next. Rather, questions are released in groups (based on your performance on the previous group). This type of testing is called multi-stage adaptive design. The score scale is different as well – total scores will be reported on a scale of 100-200, and individual sections on scales of 0-20.

How Do You Prepare for the Executive Assessment?
One of the benefits of the Executive Assessment being touted by GMAC® is the reduction in significant preparation for this test. GMAC® advocates minimal preparation and has not rolled out any preparation materials specifically designed for this assessment. While a shorter test might suggest less preparation required, it also give candidates an opportunity to truly shine and demonstrate mastery of certain subjects and critical reasoning skills.

Which EMBA Programs Accept It Today?
Just like currency, a test is only as good as the institutions that accept it. Currently, the exam is being touted as an EMBA admissions tool. Six schools have signed on to use it as part of their admissions processes:  INSEAD (France), CEIBS (China), London Business School (United Kingdom), the University of Hong Kong, Columbia University (New York, USA), and the University of Chicago (Illinois, USA). How the schools are using it varies by program.

In terms of preference, LBS’ website suggests that they’ll accept either the Executive Assessment or the GMAT while CEIBS indicates a preference for the Executive Assessment. Columbia, the University of Chicago, and the University of Hong Kong will accept the GMAT, GRE or Executive Assessment, and INSEAD only lists the GMAT currently (as of 3/11/2016), but we can assume they’ll accept either  the GMAT or Executive Assessment for future applicants.

We’ll take a deeper look at the Executive Assessment and schools in our next article, but initial feedback seems positive. LBS’ blog touts it as a quality tool because it is “relevant to executives in terms of its content (much more focus on critical thinking, analysis and problem solving, and much less on pure mathematics and grammatical structures).” At Veritas Prep, we’re committed to staying abreast of the latest developments and trends in the graduate business space, and helping candidate identify the best assessment and mode of preparation.

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

By Joanna Graham

Understanding Absolute Values with Two Variables

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomWe have looked at quite a few absolute value and inequality concepts. (Check out our discussion on the basics of absolute values and inequalities, here, and our discussion on how to handle inequalities with multiple absolute value terms in a single variable, here.) Today let’s look at an absolute value concept involving two variables. It is unlikely that you will see such a question on the actual GMAT, since it involves multiple steps, but it will help you understand absolute values better.

Recall the definition of absolute value:

|x| = x if x ≥ 0

|x| = -x if x < 0

So, to remove the absolute value sign, you will need to consider two cases – one when x is positive or 0, and another when it is negative.

Say, you are given an inequality, such as |x – y| < |x|. Here, you have two absolute value expressions: |x – y| and |x|. You need to get rid of the absolute value signs, but how will you do that?

You know that to remove the absolute value sign, you need to consider the two cases. Therefore:

|x – y| = (x – y) if (x – y) ≥ 0

|x – y| = – (x – y) if (x – y) < 0

But don’t forget, we also need to remove the absolute value sign that |x| has. Therefore:

|x| = x if x ≥ 0

|x| = -x if x < 0

In all we will get four cases to consider:

Case 1: (x – y) ≥ 0 and x ≥ 0

Case 2: (x – y) < 0 and x ≥ 0

Case 3: (x – y) ≥ 0 and x < 0

Case 4: (x – y) < 0 and x < 0

Let’s look at each case separately:

Case 1: (x – y) ≥ 0 (which implies x ≥ y) and x ≥ 0

|x – y| < |x|

(x – y) < x

-y < 0

Multiply by -1 to get:

y > 0

In this case, we will get 0 < y ≤ x.

Case 2: (x – y) < 0 (which implies x < y) and x ≥ 0

|x – y| < |x|

-(x – y) < x

2x > y

x > y/2

In this case, we will get 0 < y/2 < x < y.

Case 3: (x – y) ≥ 0 (which implies x ≥ y) and x < 0

|x – y| < |x|

(x – y) < -x

2x < y

x < y/2

In this case, we will get y ≤ x < y/2 < 0.

Case 4: (x – y) < 0 (which implies x < y) and x < 0

|x – y| < |x|

-(x – y) < -x

-x + y < -x

y < 0

In this case, we will get x < y < 0.

Considering all four cases, we get that both x and y are either positive or both are negative. Case 1 and Case 2 imply that if both x and y are positive, then x > y/2, and Case 3 and Case 4 imply that if both x and y are negative, then x < y/2. With these in mind, there is a range of values in which the inequality will hold. Both x and y should have the same sign – if they are both positive, x > y/2, and if they are both negative, x < y/2.

Here are some examples of values for which the inequality will hold:

x = 4, y = 5

x = 8, y = 2

x = -2, y = -1

x = -5, y = -6

etc.

Here are some examples of values for which the inequality will not hold:

x = 4, y = -5 (x and y have opposite signs)

x = 5, y = 15 (x is not greater than y/2)

x = -5, y = 9 (x and y have opposite signs)

x = -6, y = -14 (x is not less than y/2)

etc.

As said before, don’t worry about going through this method during the actual GMAT exam – if you do get a similar question, some strategies such as plugging in values and/or using answer choices to your advantage will work. Overall, this example hopefully helped you understand absolute values a little better.

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have free online GMAT seminars running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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!

Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: The Case of a Correct Answer Despite Incorrect Logic!

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomIt is common for GMAT test-takers to think in the right direction, understand what a question gives and what it is asking to be found out, but still get the wrong answer. Mistakes made during the execution of a problem are common on the GMAT, but what is rather rare is going with incorrect logic and still getting the correct answer! If only life was this rosy so often!

Today, we will look at a question in which exactly this phenomenon occurs – we will find the flaw in the logic that test-takers often come up with and then learn how to correct that flaw:

If a motorist had driven 1 hour longer on a certain day and at an average rate of 5 miles per hour faster, he would have covered 70 more miles than he actually did. How many more miles would he have covered than he actually did had he driven 2 hours longer and at an average rate of 10 miles per hour faster on that day?

(A) 100

(B) 120

(C) 140

(D) 150

(E) 160

This little gem (and it’s detailed algebra solution) is from our Advanced Word Problems book. We will post its solution here, too, for the sake of a comprehensive discussion:

Method 1: Algebra
Let’s start with the basic “Distance = Rate * Time” formula:

D = R*T ……….(I)

From here, the first theoretical trip can be represented as D + 70 = (R + 5)(T + 1), (the motorist travels for 1 extra hour at a rate of 5 mph faster), which can be expanded to D + 70 = RT + R + 5T +5.

We can then eliminate “D” by plugging in the value of “D” from our equation (I):

RT + 70 = RT + R + 5T + 5, which simplifies to 70 = R + 5T + 5 and then to 65 = R + 5T ……….. (II)

The second theoretical trip can be represented as (R+10)(T+2), which expands to RT + 2R + 10T + 20 (not that we only have an expression since we don’t know what the distance is).

The two middle terms (2R + 10T) can be factored to 2(R+5T), which allows us to use equation (II) here:

RT + 2(R+5T) + 20 = RT + 2(65) + 20 = RT + 150.

Since the original distance was RT, the additional distance is 150 more miles, or answer choice D.

We totally understand that this solution is a bit convoluted – algebra often is. So, understandably, students often look for a more direct logical solution.

Here is one they sometimes employ:

Method 2: Logic (Incorrect)
If the motorist had driven 1 hour longer at a rate 5 mph faster, then his original speed would be 70 miles subtracted by the extra 5 miles he drove in that hour to get 70 – 5 = 65 mph. If he drives at a rate 10 mph faster (i.e. at 65 + 10 = 75) * 2 for the extra hours, he/she would have driven 150 miles extra.

But here is the catch in this logic:

The motorist drove for an average rate of 5 mph extra. So the 70 includes not only the extra distance covered in the last hour, but also the extra 5 miles covered every hour for which he drove. Hence, his original speed is not 65. Now, let’s see the correct logical method of solving this:

Method 3: Logic (Correct)
Let’s review the original problem first. Say, speed is “S” mph – we don’t know the number of hours for which this speed was maintained.

STEP 1:

S + S + S + … + S + S = TOTAL DISTANCE COVERED

In the first hypothetical case, the motorist drove for an extra hour at a speed of 5 mph faster. This means he covered 5 extra miles every hour and then covered another S + 5 miles in the last hour. The underlined distances are the extra ones which all add up to 70.

STEP 2:

S + S + S + … + S + S = TOTAL DISTANCE COVERED

+5 +5 +5 + … + 5 + 5 = +70

In the second hypothetical case, in which the motorist drove for two hours longer at a speed of 10 mph faster,  he adds another 5 mph to his hourly speed and covers yet another distance of “S” in the second extra hour. In addition to S, he also covers another 10 miles in the second extra hour. The additional distances are shown in red  in the third case – every hour, the speed is 10 mph faster and he drove for two extra hours in this case (compared with Step 1).

STEP 3:

S + S + S + … + S + S + S + S = TOTAL DISTANCE COVERED

+5  +5  +5 + …  +5  +5  +5 = +70

+5  +5  +5 + …  +5  +5  +5 + 10 = +70 + 10

Note that the +5s and the S all add up to 70 (as seen in Step 2). We also separately add the extra 10 from the last hour. This is the logic of getting the additional distance of 70 + 70 + 10 = 150. It involves no calculations, but does require you to understand the logic. Therefore, our answer is still D.

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have free online GMAT seminars running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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!

GMAT Tip of the Week: The Biggie Smalls Sufficiency Strategy

GMAT Tip of the WeekIf it’s March, it must be Hip Hop Month in the Veritas Prep GMAT Tip of the Week space, where this week we’ll tackle the most notorious GMAT question type – Data Sufficiency – with some help from hip hop’s most notorious rapper – Biggie Smalls.

Biggie’s lyrics – and his name itself – provide a terrific template for you to use when picking numbers to test whether a statement is sufficient or not. So let’s begin with a classic lyric from “Big Poppa” – you may think Big is describing how he’s approach a young lady in a nightclub, but if you listen closely he’s actually talking directly to you as you attack Data Sufficiency:

“Ask you what your interests are, who you be with. Things to make you smile; what numbers to dial.”

“What numbers to dial” tends to be one of the biggest challenges that face GMAT examinees, so let’s examine the strategies that can take your score from “it was all a dream” to sipping champagne when you’re thirsty.

Biggie Smalls Strategy #1: Biggie Smalls
Consider this Data Sufficiency problem:

What is the value of integer z?

1) z is the remainder when positive integer y is divided by positive integer (y – 1)

2) y is not a prime number

Statistically, more than 50% of respondents in the Veritas Prep practice tests incorrectly choose answer choice A, that Statement 1 alone is sufficient but Statement 2 alone is not sufficient. Why? Because they’re not quite sure “what numbers to dial.” People know that they need to test numbers – Statement 1 is very abstract and difficult to visualize with variables – so they test a few numbers that come to mind:

If y = 5, y – 1 = 4, and the problem is then 5/4 which leads to 1, remainder 1.

If y = 10, y – 1 = 9, so the problem is then 10/9 which also leads to 1, remainder 1.

If they keep choosing random integers that happen to come to mind, they’ll see that pattern hold – the answer is ALMOST always 1 remainder 1, with exactly one exception. If y = 2, then y – 1 = 1, and 2 divided by 1 is 2 with no remainder. This is the only case where z does not equal 1, but that one exception shows that Statement 1 is not sufficient.

The question then becomes, “If there’s only one exception, how the heck does the GMAT expect me to stumble on that needle in a haystack?” And the answer comes directly from the Notorious BIG himself:

You need to test “Biggie Smalls,” meaning that you need to test the biggest number they’ll let you use (here it can be infinite, so just test a couple of really big numbers like 1,000 and 1,000,000) and you need to test the smallest number they’ll let you use. Here, that’s y = 2 and y – 1 = 1, since y – 1 must be a positive integer, and the smallest of those is 1.

The problem is that people tend to simply test numbers that come to mind (again, over half of all respondents think that Statement 1 is sufficient, which means that they very likely never considered the pairing of 2 and 1) and don’t push the limits. Data Sufficiency tends to play to the edge cases – if you get a statement like 5 < x < 12, you can’t just test 8, 9, and 10 – you’ll want to consider 5.00001 and 11.9999. When the GMAT gives you a range, use the entire range – and a good way to remind yourself of that is to just remember “Biggie Smalls.”

Biggie Smalls Strategy #2:  Juicy
In arguably his most famous song, “Juicy”, Biggie spits the line, “Damn right I like the life I live, because I went from negative to positive and it’s all…it’s all good (and if you don’t know, now you know).”

There, of course, Biggie is reminding you that you have to consider both negative and positive numbers in Data Sufficiency problems. Consider this example:

a, b, c, and d are consecutive integers such that the product abcd = 5,040. What is the value of d?

1) d is prime

2) a>b>c>d

This problem exemplifies why keeping Big’s words top of mind is so crucial – difficult problems will often “satisfy your intellect” with interesting math…and then beat you with negative/positive ideology. Here it takes some time to factor 5040 into the consecutive integers 7 x 8 x 9 x 10, but once you do, you can see that Statement 1 is sufficient: 7 is the only prime number.

But then when you carry that over to Statement 2, it’s very, very easy to see 7, 8, 9, and 10 as the only choices and again see that d = 7. But wait! If d doesn’t have to be prime – primes can only be positive – that allows for a possibility of negative numbers: -10, -9, -8, and -7. In that case, d could be either 7 or -10, so Statement 2 is actually not sufficient.

So heed Biggie’s logic: you’ll like the life you live much better if you go from negative to positive (or in most cases, vice versa since your mind usually thinks positive first), and if you don’t know (is that sufficient?) now, after checking for both positive and negative and for the biggest and smallest numbers they’ll let you pick, now you know.

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, YouTubeGoogle+ and Twitter!

By Brian Galvin.

Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: How to Find Composite Numbers on the GMAT

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomWe love to talk about prime numbers and their various properties for GMAT preparation, but composite numbers usually aren’t mentioned. Composite numbers are often viewed as whatever is leftover after prime numbers are removed from a set of positive integers (except 1 because 1 is neither prime, nor composite), but it is important to understand how these numbers are made, what makes them special and what should come to mind when we read “composite numbers.”

Principle: Every composite number is made up of 2 or more prime numbers. The prime numbers could be the same or they could be distinct.

For example:

2*2 = 4 (Composite number)

2*3*11 = 66 (Composite number)

5*23 = 115 (Composite number)

and so on…

Look at any composite number. You will always be able to split it into 2 or more prime numbers (not necessarily distinct). For example:

72 = 2*2*2*3*3

140 = 2*2*5*7

166 = 2*83

and so on…

This principle does look quite simple and intuitive at first, but when tested, we could face problems because we don’t think much about it. Let’s look at it with the help of one of our 700+ level GMAT questions:

x is the smallest integer greater than 1000 that is not prime and that has only one factor in common with 30!. What is x?

(A) 1009

(B) 1021

(C) 1147

(D) 1273

(E) 50! + 1

If we start with the answer choices, the way we often do when dealing with prime/composite numbers, we will get stuck. If we were looking for a prime number, we would use the method of elimination – we would find factors of all other numbers and the number that was left over would be the prime number.

But in this question, we are instead looking for a composite number – a specific composite number – and some of the answer choices are probably prime. Try as we might, we will not find a factor for them, and by the time we realize that it is prime, we will have wasted a lot of precious time. Let’s start from the question stem, instead.

We need a composite number that has only one factor in common with 30!. Every positive integer will have 1 as a factor, as will 30!, hence the only factor our answer and 30! will have in common is 1.

30! = 1*2*3*…*28*29*30

30! is the product of all integers from 1 to 30, so all prime numbers less than 30 are factors of 30!.

To make a composite number which has no prime factor in common with 30!, we must use prime numbers greater than 30. The first prime number greater than 30 is 31.

(As an aside, note that if we were looking for the smallest number with no factor other than 1 in common with 31!, we would skip to 37. All integers between 31 and 37 are composite and hence, would have factors lying between 1 and 31. Similarly, if we were looking for the smallest number with no factor other than 1 in common with 50!, 53 would be the answer.)

Let’s get back to our question. If we want to make a composite number without using any primes until 30, we must use two or more prime numbers greater than 30, and the smallest prime greater than 30 is 31. If we use two 31’s to get the smallest composite number, we get 31*31 = 961 But 961 is not greater than 1000, so it cannot be our answer.

So, let’s find the next prime number after 31 – it is 37. Multiplying 31 and 37, we get 31*37 = 1147. This is the smallest composite number greater than 1000 with no prime factors in common with 30! – the only factor it has in common with 30! is 1. Therefore, our answer is (C).

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have free online GMAT seminars running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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!

GMAT Tip of the Week: Verbal Answers Are Like Donald Trump

GMAT Tip of the WeekIn the winter/spring of 2016, Donald Trump is everywhere – always on your TV screen, all over your social media feeds, on the tip of everyone’s tongue, and, yes, even lurking in the answer choices on your GMAT verbal section.

Why are verbal answer choices like Donald Trump? Is it that they’re only correct 20% of the time? That they’re very often a lot of boastful verbiage about nothing? Hackneyed comedy aside, there’s a very valid reason and it’s one that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio learned just last night:

Verbal choices, like Donald Trump, simply MUST be attacked. If you saw last night’s debate (or read any coverage of it) you saw how the two closest challengers changed tactics immensely, verbally attacking Trump all night. The rationale there is that if you let Trump go unchecked, he’s going to attack you and he’s going to get away with his own stump speeches all night. The exact same thing is true of GMAT verbal answer choices. If you don’t attack them – if you’re not actively looking for reasons that they’re wrong – they’ll both beat you tactically and wear you down over the test. You simply must be in attack mode throughout the verbal section.

What does that mean? For almost every answer choice, there’s some reason there why someone would pick it (after all, if no one picks it then it’s just a terrible, useless answer choice). And so if you’re looking for reasons to like an answer choice, you’re going to find lots to like (and in doing so pick some wrong answers) and you’re going to get worn down by keeping wrong answer choices in your “maybe” pile too long. But if, instead, you’re more skeptical about each answer choice, actively looking for reasons not to pick them, that discerning approach will help you more efficiently find correct answers.

Consider the example:

If Shero wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission. But Stauning is more qualified to head it since he is an architect who has been on the planning commission for 15 years. Unless the polls are grossly inaccurate, Shero will win.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the information above?

(A) If the polls are grossly inaccurate, someone more qualified than McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission.
(B) McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission only if the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out.
(C) Either Shero will win the election or Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.
(D) McGuinness is not an architect and has not been on the planning commission for 15 years or more.
(E) If the polls are a good indication of how the election will turn out, someone less qualified than Stauning will be appointed head of the planning commission.

Here there’s a lot to like about a lot of answer choices:

A seems plausible. We know that McGuinness isn’t the most qualified, so there’s a high likelihood that a different candidate could find someone better (maybe even Stauning). B also has a lot to like (and it’s actually ALMOST perfect as we’ll discuss in a second). And so on. But you need to attack these answers:

A is fatally flawed. You don’t know for certain that a different candidate would appoint anyone other than McGuinness, and you really only know that one person is more qualified (and does he even want the job?). This cannot be concluded. B has that dangerous word “only” in it – remove it and the answer is correct, but “only if the polls are a good indication” is way too far to go. What if the polls are flawed and the underdog candidate just appoints McGuinness, too? The same logic invalidates C (there’s nothing guaranteeing that a different candidate wouldn’t pick McGuinness), and the word “and” makes D all the harder to prove (how do you know that McGuinness lacks both qualities?).

The lesson? Much like John Kasich may find on that same stage, the nicer and more accommodating you are, the more the GMAT walks over you. If you want to give each answer a fair chance, you’ll find that many answers have enough reason to be tempting. So follow the new GOP debate strategy and always be attacking. You didn’t sign up for the GMAT to make friends with answer choices; you signed up to “win.”

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

By Brian Galvin.

All You Need to Know About Using Interest Equations on the GMAT

PiggyBankAs an undergraduate, I concentrated in Finance. When I tell people this, they make two unwarranted assumptions: the first is that I work in Finance (I don’t), and the second is that I am a glutton for mathematical punishment (debatable).

The reason people are intimidated by the kinds of compound interest equations we encounter in finance classes is that they look complicated. GMAT test-takers get anxious whenever I introduce this topic in class. But, as with most seemingly abstruse topics, these concepts are far less difficult than they appear at first glance.

Here’s all we really need to know about interest equations: if we’re talking about simple interest, the interest will be the same in every time period, and the equation you assemble will end up being straightforward linear algebra (if you choose to do algebra, that is). If we’re talking about compound interest, we’re really talking about an exponent question. The rest involves a bit of logic and algebraic manipulation.

Look at this official question that many of my students have initially struggled with:

An investment of $1000 was made in a certain account and earned interest that was compounded annually. The annual interest rate was fixed for the duration of the investment, and after 12 years the $1000 increased to 4000 by earning interest. In how many years after the initial investment was made would the 1000 have increased to 8000 by earning interest at that rate?  

(A) 16
(B) 18
(C) 20
(D) 24
(E) 30

Looking at this question, the first instinct of most test-takers is to start frantically rummaging through their memory banks for that compound interest formula – there’s no need. Take a deep breath and remind yourself that these questions are just exponent questions involving a bit of algebra. With this in mind, let’s call the factor that the principal is multiplied by in each time period “x”. (If you’re accustomed to working with the formula, “x” is basically standing in for your standard (1 + r/100.) If you’re not accustomed to this formula, feel free to retroactively erase this parenthetical from your memory banks.)

If the principal is getting multiplied by “x” each year, then after one year, the investment will be 1000x. After two years the investment will be 1000x^2. After three years, it will be 1000x^3… and so on. In our problem, we’re talking about an investment after 12 years, which would be 1000x^12. If this value is 4000, we get the following equation: 1000x^12 = 4000 (and file away for now that the exponent represents the number of years elapsed).

Ultimately, we want to know what the exponent should be when the investment is at $8000. If you’re looking at the answer choices now and think that 24 seems just a little too easy, your instincts are sound.

We need to work with 1000x^12 = 4000. Let’s simplify:

Divide both sides by 1000 to get x^12 = 4.  Solving for x seems unnecessarily complicated, so let’s consider our options. x^12 = 4 is the same as x^12 = 2^2, so if we take the square root of both sides, we will get x^6 = 2.

Essentially, this means that every 6 years (the exponent) the investment is doubling, or multiplied by 2. But we want to know how long it will take for that initial $1000 to become $8000, or to be multiplied by a factor of 8.

What can we do to x^6 = 2 so that we have an 8 on the right side? We can cube both sides!

(x^6)^3 = 2^3

x^18 = 8

This means that it will take 18 years to increase the investment by a factor of 8. Therefore, our answer is B.

Alternatively, once we see that the investment doubles every 6 years, we can ask ourselves how many times we need to double an investment to go from $1000 to $8000. Doubling once gets us to $2000. Doubling twice gets us to $4000. Doubling a third time gets us to $8000. So if we double the investment every 6 years, and we need the investment to double 3 times, it will take a total of 6*3 = 18 years.

Takeaway: There are plenty of formulas that could come in handy on the GMAT – just know that a little logic and conceptual understanding will allow you to solve many of the questions that seem to require a particular formula. Memorization has limits that logic and mental agility don’t.

*GMATPrep 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 FacebookYouTubeGoogle+ and Twitter!

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

Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Ratios in GMAT Data Sufficiency

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomWe know that ratios are the building blocks for a lot of other concepts such as time/speed, work/rate and mixtures. As such, we spend a lot of time getting comfortable with understanding and manipulating ratios, so the GMAT questions that test ratios seem simple enough, but not always! Just like questions from all other test areas, questions on ratios can be tricky too, especially when they are formatted as Data Sufficiency questions.

Let’s look at two cases today: when a little bit of data is sufficient, and when a lot of data is insufficient.

When a little bit of data is sufficient!
Three brothers shared all the proceeds from the sale of their inherited property. If the eldest brother received exactly 5/8 of the total proceeds, how much money did the youngest brother (who received the smallest share) receive from the sale?

Statement 1: The youngest brother received exactly 1/5 the amount received by the middle brother.

Statement 2: The middle brother received exactly half of the two million dollars received by the eldest brother.

First impressions on reading this question? The question stem gives the fraction of money received by one brother. Statement 1 gives the fraction of money received by the youngest brother relative to the amount received by the middle brother. Statement 2 gives the fraction of money received by the middle brother relative to the eldest brother and an actual amount. It seems like the three of these together give us all the information we need. Let’s dig deeper now.

From the Question stem:

Eldest brother’s share = (5/8) of Total

Statement 1: Youngest Brother’s share = (1/5) * Middle brother’s share

We don’t have any actual number – all the information is in fraction/ratio form. Without an actual value, we cannot find the amount of money received by the youngest brother, therefore, Statement 1 alone is not sufficient.

Statement 2: Middle brother’s share = (1/2) * Eldest brother’s share, and the eldest brother’s share = 2 million dollars

Middle brother’s share = (1/2) * 2 million dollars = 1 million dollars

Now, we might be tempted to jump to Statement 1 where the relation between youngest brother’s share and middle brother’s share is given, but hold on: we don’t need that information. We know from the question stem that the eldest brother’s share is (5/8) of the total share.

So 2 million = (5/8) of the total share, therefore the total share = 3.2 million dollars.

We already know the share of the eldest and middle brothers, so we can subtract their shares out of the total and get the share of the youngest brother.

Youngest brother’s share = 3.2 million – 2 million – 1 million = 0.2 million dollars

Statement 2 alone is sufficient, therefore, the answer is B.

When a lot of data is insufficient!
A department manager distributed a number of books, calendars, and diaries among the staff in the department, with each staff member receiving x books, y calendars, and z diaries. How many staff members were in the department?

Statement 1: The numbers of books, calendars, and diaries that each staff member received were in the ratio 2:3:4, respectively.

Statement 2: The manager distributed a total of 18 books, 27 calendars, and 36 diaries.

First impressions on reading this question? The question stem tells us that each staff member received the same number of books, calendars, and diaries. Statement 1 gives us the ratio of books, calendars and diaries. Statement 2 gives us the actual numbers. It certainly seems that we should be able to obtain the answer. Let’s find out:

Looking at the question stem, Staff Member 1 recieved x books, y calendars, and z diaries, Staff Member 2 recieved x books, y calendars, and z diaries… and so on until Staff Member n (who also recieves x books, y calendars, and z diaries).

With this in mind, the total number of books = nx, the total number of calendars = ny, and the total number of diaries = nz.

Question: What is n?

Statement 1 tells us that x:y:z = 2:3:4. This means the values of x, y and z can be:

2, 3, and 4,

or 4, 6, and 8,

or 6, 9, and 12,

or any other values in the ratio 2:3:4.

They needn’t necessarily be 2, 3 and 4, they just need the required ratio of 2:3:4.

Obviously, n can be anything here, therefore, Statement 1 alone is not sufficient.

Statement 2 tell us that nx = 18, ny = 27, and nz = 36.

Now we know the actual values of nx, ny and nz, but we still don’t know the values of x, y, z and n.

They could be

2, 3, 4 and 9

or 6, 9, 12 and 3

Therefore, Statement 2 alone is also not sufficient.

Considering both statements together, note that Statement 2 tells us that nx:ny:nz = 18:27:36 = 2:3:4 (they had 9 as a common factor).

Since n is a common factor on left side, x:y:z = 2:3:4 (ratios are best expressed in the lowest form).

This is a case of what we call “we already knew that” – information given in Statement 1 is already a part of Statement 2, so it is not possible that Statement 2 alone is not sufficient but that together Statement 1 and 2 are. Hence, both statements together are not sufficient, and our answer must be E.

A question that arises often here is, “Why can’t we say that the number of staff members must be 9?”

This is because the ratio of 2:3:4 is same as the ratio of 6:9:12, which is same as 18:27:36 (when you multiply each number of a ratio by the same number, the ratio remains unchanged).

If 18 books, 27 calendars, and 36 diaries are distributed in the ratio 2:3:4, we could give them all to one person, or to 3 people (giving them each 6 books, 9 calendars and 12 diaries), or to 9 people (giving them each 2 books, 3 calendars and 4 diaries).

When we see 18, 27 and 36, what comes to mind is that the number of people could have been 9, which would mean that the department manager distributed 2 books, 3 calendars and 4 diaries to each person. But we know that 9 is divisible by 3, which should remind us that the number of people could also be 3, which would mean that the manager distributed 6 books, 9 calendars and 12 diaries to each person. As such, we still don’t know how many staff members there are, and our answer remians E.

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have free online GMAT seminars running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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!

Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Circular Reasoning in GMAT Critical Reasoning Questions

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomConsider this argument:

Anatomical bilateral symmetry is a common trait. It follows, therefore, that it confers survival advantages on organisms. After all, if bilateral symmetry did not confer such advantages, it would not be common.

What is the flaw here?

The argument restates rather than proves. The conclusion is a  premise, too – we start out by assuming that the conclusion is true and then state that the conclusion is true.

If A (bilateral symmetry) were not B (confer survival advantages), A (bilateral symmetry) would not be C (common).

A (bilateral symmetry) is C (common) so A (bilateral symmetry) is B (confer survival advantages).

Note that we did not try to prove that “A is C implies A is B”. We did not explain the connection between C and B. For our reasoning, all we said is that if A were not B, it would not be C, so we are starting out by taking the conclusion to be true.

This is called circular reasoning. It is a kind of logical fallacy – a flaw in the logic. You begin with what you are trying to prove, using your own conclusion as one of your premises.

Why is it good to understand circular reasoning for the GMAT? A critical reasoning question that asks you to mimic the reasoning argument could require you to identify such a flawed reasoning and find the argument that mimics it.

Continuing with the previous example:

Anatomical bilateral symmetry is a common trait. It follows, therefore, that it confers survival advantages on organisms. After all, if bilateral symmetry did not confer such advantages, it would not be common.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following arguments is most similar to that in the argument above?

(A) Since it is Sawyer who is negotiating for the city government, it must be true that the city takes the matter seriously. After all, if Sawyer had not been available, the city would have insisted that the negotiations be deferred.
(B) Clearly, no candidate is better qualified for the job than Trumbull. In fact, even to suggest that there might be a more highly qualified candidate seems absurd to those who have seen Trumbull at work.
(C) If Powell lacked superior negotiating skills, she would not have been appointed arbitrator in this case. As everyone knows, she is the appointed arbitrator, so her negotiating skills are, detractors notwithstanding, bound to be superior.
(D) Since Varga was away on vacation at the time, it must have been Rivers who conducted the secret negotiations. Any other scenario makes little sense, for Rivers never does the negotiating unless Varga is unavailable.
(E) If Wong is appointed arbitrator, a decision will be reached promptly. Since it would be absurd to appoint anyone other than Wong as arbitrator, a prompt decision can reasonably be expected.

We’ve established that the above pattern of reasoning has a circular reasoning flaw. Let’s consider each answer option to find the one which has similarly flawed reasoning.

(A) Since it is Sawyer who is negotiating for the city government, it must be true that the city takes the matter seriously. After all, if Sawyer had not been available, the city would have insisted that the negotiations be deferred.

Here is the structure of this argument:

If A (Sawyer) were not B (available), C (the city) would have D (insisted on deferring).

Since A (Sawyer) is B (available to the city), C (the city) does E (takes matter seriously).

Obviously, this argument structure is not the same as in the original argument.

(B) Clearly, no candidate is better qualified for the job than Trumbull. In fact, even to suggest that there might be a more highly qualified candidate seems absurd to those who have seen Trumbull at work.

Here is the structure of this argument:

A (people who have seen Trumbull at work) find B (Trumbull is not the best) absurd, therefore B (Trumbull is not the best) is false.

This is not circular reasoning. We have not assumed that B is false in our premises, we are simply saying that people think B is absurd. This is flawed logic too, but it is not circular reasoning.

(C) If Powell lacked superior negotiating skills, she would not have been appointed arbitrator in this case. As everyone knows, she is the appointed arbitrator, so her negotiating skills are, detractors notwithstanding, bound to be superior.

Here is the structure of this argument:

If A (Powell) were not B (had superior negotiating skills), A (Powell) would not have been C (appointed arbitrator).

A (Powell) is C (appointed arbitrator), therefore A (Powell) is B (had superior negotiating skills).

Note that the structure of the argument matches the structure of our original argument – this is circular reasoning, too. We are saying that if A were not B, A would not be C and concluding that since A is C, A is B. The conclusion is already taken to be true in the initial argument, so we can see it is is also an example of circular reasoning.

Hence (C) is the correct answer. Nevertheless, let’s look at the other two options and why they don’t work:

(D) Since Varga was away on vacation at the time, it must have been Rivers who conducted the secret negotiations. Any other scenario makes little sense, for Rivers never does the negotiating unless Varga is unavailable.

Here is the structure of this argument:

If A (Varga) is B (available), C (Rivers) does not do D (negotiate).

A (Varga) was not B (available), so C (Rivers) did D (negotiate).

This logic is flawed – the premise tells us what happens when A is B, however it does not tell us what happens when A is not B. We cannot conclude anything about what happens when A is not B. And because this is not circular reasoning, it cannot be the answer.

(E) If Wong is appointed arbitrator, a decision will be reached promptly. Since it would be absurd to appoint anyone other than Wong as arbitrator, a prompt decision can reasonably be expected.

Here is the structure of this argument:

If A (Wong) is B (appointed arbitrator), C (a decision) will be D (reached promptly).

A (Wong) not being B (appointed arbitrator) would be absurd, so C (a decision) will be D (reached promptly).

Again, this argument uses brute force, but it is not circular reasoning. “A not being B would be absurd” is not a convincing reason, so the argument is not strong as it is, but in any case, we don’t have to worry about it since it doesn’t use circular reasoning.

Take a look at this question for practice:

Dr. A: The new influenza vaccine is useless at best and possibly dangerous. I would never use it on a patient.
Dr. B: But three studies published in the Journal of Medical Associates have rated that vaccine as unusually effective.
Dr. A: The studies must have been faulty because the vaccine is worthless.

In which of the following is the reasoning most similar to that of Dr. A?

(A) Three of my patients have been harmed by that vaccine during the past three weeks, so the vaccine is unsafe.
(B) Jerrold Jersey recommends this milk, and I don’t trust Jerrold Jersey, so I won’t buy this milk.
(C) Wingz tennis balls perform best because they are far more effective than any other tennis balls.
(D) I’m buying Vim Vitamins. Doctors recommend them more often than they recommend any other vitamins, so Vim Vitamins must be good.
(E) Since University of Muldoon graduates score about 20 percent higher than average on the GMAT, Sheila Lee, a University of Muldoon graduate, will score about 20 percent higher than average when she takes the GMAT.

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have free online GMAT seminars running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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!

GMAT Tip of the Week: Marco Rubio, Repetition, and Sentence Correction

GMAT Tip of the WeekLet’s dispel with the fiction that Marco Rubio doesn’t know what he’s doing on Sentence Correction problems. He knows exactly what he’s doing. In his memorable New Hampshire debate performance this past week, Rubio famously delivered the same 25-second speech several times, even in direct response to Chris Christie’s accusation that Rubio only speaks in memorized 25-second speech form.

In doing so, he likely cost himself delegates in New Hampshire and perhaps even cost himself the election (was this his Rick Perry “I can’t remember the third thing” or Howard Dean “Hi-yaaaah!” moment?), but he also provided you with a critical Sentence Correction strategy:

Find what you do well, and keep doing it over and over until you just can’t do it anymore.

This strategy manifests itself in two ways on GMAT Sentence Correction problems:

1) Look for primary Decision Points first.
Rubio came into the debate with one strong talking point, and his first inclination – regardless of the question – was to go straight to that point. On Sentence Correction problems, that is the single most important thing you can do. Much like a debate moderator, the GMAT testmaker will try to get you “off message” by offering you several decisions you could make. And often the decision that comes first is one you’re just not good at, or that actually isn’t a good differentiator. For example, you may think you need to decide between:

“…so realistic as to…” vs. “…so realistic that it…”

“…not unlike…” vs. “…like…”

“…all things antique…” vs. “…all antique things…”

And in any of those cases, you might find that both expressions are actually correct; those are differences between answer choices, but they’re not the difference between correct and incorrect. Idiomatic differences, changes in word choice, etc. may seem to beg your attention, but like Marco Rubio, you should head into each question with your list of points you want to address: modifiers, verbs, pronouns, parallel structure, etc. Look for those primary decision points first and attack them until you’ve exhausted them. Nearly always, you’ll find that doing so eliminates enough answer choices that you never have to deal with the trickier, more obscure, and often irrelevant differences between choices.

Approach each Sentence Correction problem with your scripted and heavily-practiced Decision Points in mind first. Sentence Correction is a task tailor-made for Rubio-bots.

2) Once you identify an error, stay on message as long as you can.
Rubio’s strategy backfired, but that doesn’t mean that it was a poor strategy to begin with – in fact, it’s one that will immensely help you on Sentence Correction problems. He identified a message that resonated, and he decided to do that until he was – quite literally – forced to do something else. This is a critical Sentence Correction tactic: if you find a particular error (say, an illogical modifier), you should then hold each answer choice up to that standard checking for the same error. Nearly always, if you find an error in one answer choice that same type of error will appear in at least one more.

Don’t treat each individual answer choice as a “unique snowflake” that you’ve never seen before. If there’s a verb tense / timeline error in choice B, then immediately scan C, D, and E checking those verb tenses and quickly eliminating any choices with a problem.

For example, consider the problem:

The economic report released today by Congress and the Federal Reserve was bleaker than expected, which suggests that the nearing recession might be even deeper and more prolonged than even the most pessimistic analysts have predicted.

(A) which suggests that the nearing recession might be even deeper and more prolonged than even the most pessimistic analysts have predicted.
(B) which suggests that the nearing recession might be deeper and more prolonged than that predicted by even the most pessimistic analysts.
(C) suggests that the nearing recession might be even deeper and more prolonged than that predicted by even the most pessimistic analysts.
(D) suggesting that the nearing recession might be deeper and more prolonged than that predicted by even the most pessimistic analysts.
(E) a situation that is even more deep and prolonged than even the most pessimistic analysts have predicted.

If you’re attacking this problem like a Rubio-bot, you’ll notice before you ever look at the sentence that the answer choices supply different modifiers. A and B use the relative modifier “which,” D uses the participial phrase “suggesting,” and E uses an appositive “a situation.” Noticing that, you should begin reading the sentence with that Modifier talking point in mind.

When you realize that “which” is used incorrectly in A, you don’t need to read the rest of B to see that it makes the exact same mistake. Since the sentence calls for a modifier (the portion before the comma and underlined is a complete sentence on its own, so the role of the underlined section is to further describe) and the only correct modifier in this situation is the participial “suggesting,” you can eliminate three answer choices (A, B, and E) just with that one Decision Point and quickly arrive at the correct answer, D.

More importantly, remember the overarching strategy: before you attack any Sentence Correction problem, know the grounds upon which you’re hoping to attack it – have your primary Decision Points in mind before you’re ever asked the question. And then when you do find one of those Decision Points that you can use, repeat it ad nauseum until it no longer applies.

Let’s dispel with the fiction that Marco Rubio doesn’t know what he’s doing when he repeats the same talking point over and over again; he knows exactly what he’s doing…it just works better on the GMAT than it does in a presidential debate.

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

By Brian Galvin.

A 750+ Level GMAT Geometry Question

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomToday we will discuss a pretty advanced GMAT question, because we can still use our basic GMAT concepts to find the answer. It may seem like we will need trigonometry to handle this question, but that is not so. In fact, the question will look familiar at first, but will present unforeseen problems later on.

While going through this exercise, we will learn a few tips and tricks which will be useful in our mainstream GMAT questions, hence, it will add value to our GMAT repertoire (especially in elimination techniques). Let’s go on to the question now:

In triangle ABC, if angle ABC is 30 degrees, AC = 2*sqrt(2) and AB = BC = X, what is the value of X?

(A) Sqrt(3) – 1

(B) Sqrt(3) + 2

(C) (Sqrt(3) – 1)/2

(D) (Sqrt(3) + 1)/2

(E) 2*(Sqrt(3) + 1)

What we see here is an isosceles triangle with one angle as 30 degrees and other two angles as (180 – 30)/2 = 75 degrees each.

The side opposite the 30 degrees angle is 2*sqrt(2). One simple observation is that X must be greater than 2*sqrt(2) because these sides are opposite the greater angles (75 degrees).

2*sqrt(2) is a bit less than 2*1.5 because Sqrt(2) = 1.414. So 2*sqrt(2) is a bit less than 3. Note that options (A), (C), and (D) are much smaller than 3, so these cannot be the value of X. We have already improved our chances of getting the correct answer by eliminating three options! Now we have to choose out of (B) and (E).
2Triangles

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is what is given: Angle ABC = 30 degrees, and AC = 2*sqrt(2). We need to find the value of X. Now, our 30 degree angle reminds us of a 30-60-90 triangle in which we know the ratio of the sides – given one side, we can find the other two.

The problem is this: if we drop an altitude from angle B to AC, the angle 30 degrees will be split in half and we will actually get a 15-75-90 triangle, instead. We won’t have a 30-60-90 triangle anymore, so what do we do now? Let’s try to maintain the 30 degree angle as it is to get the 30-60-90 triangle, and drop an altitude from angle C to AB instead, calling it CE. Now we have a 30-60-90 triangle! Since BCE is a 30-60-90 triangle, its sides are in the ratio 1:sqrt(3):2. Side X corresponds to 2 on the ratio, so CE = x/2.

Area of triangle ABC = (1/2)*BD*AC = (1/2)*CE*AB

(1/2)*BD*2*sqrt(2) = (1/2)*(X/2)*X

BD = X^2/4*Sqrt(2)

Now DC = (1/2)AC = 2*sqrt(2)/2 = sqrt(2)

Let’s use the pythagorean theorem on triangle BDC:

BD^2 + DC^2 = BC^2

(X^2/4*Sqrt(2))^2 + (Sqrt(2))^2 = X^2

X^4/32 + 2 = X^2

X^4 – 32*X^2 + 64 = 0

X^4 – 16X^2 + 8^2 – 16X^2 = 0

(X^2 – 8)^2 – (4X)^2 = 0

(X^2 -8 + 4X) * (X^2 – 8 – 4X) = 0

Normally, this would require us to use the quadratic roots formula, but let’s not get that complicated. We can just plug in the the two shortlisted options and see if either of the factors is 0. If one of the factors becomes 0, the equation will be satisfied and we will have the root of the equation.

Since both options have both terms positive, it means the co-efficient corresponding to B in Ax^2 + Bx + C = 0 must be negative.

x = [-B +- Sqrt(B^2 – 4AC)]/2A

-B will give us a positive term if B is negative, so we will get the answer by plugging into (X^2 – 4X – 8):

Put X = Sqrt(3) + 2 in X^2 – 4X – 8 and you do not get 0.

Put X = 2*(Sqrt(3) + 1) in X^2 – 4X – 8 and you do get 0.

This means that X is 2*(Sqrt(3) + 1), so our answer must be (E).

To recap:

Tip 1: A greater side of a triangle is opposite a greater angle.

Tip 2: We can get the relation between sides and altitudes of a triangle by using the area of the triangle formula.

Tip 3: The quadratic formula can help identify the sign of the irrational roots.

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have free online GMAT seminars running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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!

GMAT Tip of the Week: Cam Newton’s GMAT Success Strategy

GMAT Tip of the WeekAs we head into Super Bowl weekend, the most popular conversation topic in the world is the Carolina Panthers’ quarterback, Cam Newton. Many questions surround him: is he the QB to whom the Brady/Manning “Greatest of All Time” torch will be passed? Is this the beginning of a new dynasty? Why do people like/dislike him so much? What the heck is the Dab, anyway? And most commonly:

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, YouTubeGoogle+ and Twitter!

By Brian Galvin.

It’s All Greek to Me: How to Use Greek Concepts to Beat the GMAT

Aero_img084The ancient Greeks were, to put it mildly, really neat. They created or helped to create the foundations of philosophy, theater, science, democracy, and mathematics – no small accomplishment for a small war-torn civilization from over two millennia ago. Many of our contemporary ideas, beliefs, and traditions are rooted in contributions made by Greek thinkers, and the GMAT is no exception.

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 FacebookYouTube, Google+ and Twitter!

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

Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Solving GMAT Critical Reasoning Questions Involving Rates

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomIn our “Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom” series, we have seen how to solve various rates questions – the basic ones as well as the complicated ones. But we haven’t considered critical reasoning questions involving rates, yet. In fact, the concept of rates makes these problems very difficult to both understand and explain. First, let’s look at what “rate” is.

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 FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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!

GMAT Tip of the Week: Kanye, Wiz Khalifa, Twitter Beef…and GMAT Variables

GMAT Tip of the WeekThis week, the internet exploded with a massive Twitter feud between rappers Kanye West and Wiz Khalifa, with help from their significant others and exes. For days now, hashtags unpublishable for an education blog have topped the trending lists, all as a result of the epic social media confrontation. And all of THAT originated from a classic GMAT mistake from the Louis Vuitton Don – a man who so loves his hometown Kellogg School of Management that he essentially named his daughter Northwestern – himself:

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, YouTubeGoogle+ and Twitter!

By Brian Galvin.

Why Logic is More Important Than Algebra on the GMAT

QuestioningOne common complaint I get from students is that their algebra skills aren’t where they need to be to excel on the GMAT. This complaint, invariably, is followed by a request for additional algebra drills.

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 FacebookYouTubeGoogle+ and Twitter!

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

Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Should You Use the Permutation or Combination Formula?

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomA recurring question from many students who are preparing for GMAT is this: When should one use the permutation formula and when should one use the combination formula?

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 FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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!

GMAT Tip of the Week: Stay In Your Lane (In The Snow And On Sentence Correction)

GMAT Tip of the WeekAs the east coast braces for a historic winter storm (and Weezer fans can’t get “My Name is Jonas” out of their heads), there’s a lesson that needs to be taught from Hanover to Cambridge to Manhattan to Philadelphia to Charlottesville.

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.

Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Keeping an Open Mind in Critical Reasoning

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomToday we will discuss why it is important to keep an open mind while toiling away on your GMAT studying. Don’t go into test day with biases expecting that if a question tells us this, then it must ask that. GMAC testmakers are experts in surprising you and taking advantage of your preconceived notions, which is how they confuse you and convert a 600-level question to a 700-level one.

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 FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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!

GMAT Tip of the Week: Your MLK Study Challenge (Remove Your Biases)

GMAT Tip of the WeekAs we celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. this weekend, you may take some of your free time to study for the GMAT. And if you do, make sure to heed the lessons of Dr. King, particularly as you study Data Sufficiency.

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.

Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: An Interesting Property of Exponents

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomToday, let’s take a look at an interesting number property. Once we discuss it, you might think, “I always knew that!” and “Really, what’s new here?” So let me give you a question beforehand:

For integers x and y, 2^x + 2^y = 2^(36). What is the value of x + y?

Think about it for a few seconds – could you come up with the answer in the blink of an eye? If yes, great! Close this window and wait for the next week’s post. If no, then read on. There is much to learn today and it is an eye-opener!

Let’s start by jotting down some powers of numbers:

Power of 2: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 …

Power of 3: 1, 3, 9, 27, 81, 243 …

Power of 4: 1, 4, 16, 64, 256, 1024 …

Power of 5: 1, 5, 25, 125, 625, 3125 …

and so on.

Obviously, for every power of 2, when you multiply the previous power by 2, you get the next power (4*2 = 8).

For every power of 3, when you multiply the previous power by 3, you get the next power (27*3 = 81), and so on.

Also, let’s recall that multiplication is basically repeated addition, so 4*2 is basically 4 + 4.

This leads us to the following conclusion using the power of 2:

4 * 2 = 8

4 + 4 = 8

2^2 + 2^2 = 2^3

(2 times 2^2 gives 2^3)

Similarly, for the power of 3:

27 * 3 = 81

27 + 27 + 27 = 81

3^3 + 3^3 + 3^3 = 3^4

(3 times 3^3 gives 3^4)

And for the power of 4:

4 * 4 = 16

4 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 16

4^1 + 4^1 + 4^1 + 4^1 = 4^2

(4 times 4^1 gives 4^2)

Finally, for the power of 5:

125 * 5 = 625

125 + 125 + 125 + 125 + 125 = 625

5^3 + 5^3 + 5^3 + 5^3 + 5^3 = 5^4

(5 times 5^3 gives 5^4)

Quite natural and intuitive, isn’t it? Take a look at the previous question again now.

For integers x and y, 2^x + 2^y = 2^(36). What is the value of x + y?

A) 18

(B) 32

(C) 35

(D) 64

(E) 70

Which two powers when added will give 2^(36)?

From our discussion above, we know they are 2^(35) and 2^(35).

2^(35) + 2^(35) = 2^(36)

So x = 35 and y = 35 will satisfy this equation.

x + y = 35 + 35 = 70

Therefore, our answer is E.

One question arises here: Is this the only possible sum of x and y? Can x and y take some other integer values such that the sum of 2^x and 2^y will be 2^(36)?

Well, we know that no matter which integer values x and y take, 2^x and 2^y will always be positive, which means both x and y must be less than 36. Now note that no matter which two powers of 2 you add, their sum will always be less than 2^(36). For example:

2^(35) + 2^(34) < 2^(35) + 2^(35)

2^(2) + 2^(35) < 2^(35) + 2^(35)

etc.

So if x and y are both integers, the only possible values that they can take are 35 and 35.

How about something like this: 2^x + 2^y + 2^z = 2^36? What integer values can x, y and z take here?

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have free online GMAT seminars running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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!

GMAT Tip of the Week: Make 2016 The Year Of Number Fluency

GMAT Tip of the WeekWhether you were watching the College Football Playoffs or Ryan Seacrest; whether you were at a house party, in a nightclub, or home studying for the GMAT; however you rang in 2016, if 2016 is the year that you make your business school goals come true, hopefully you had one of the following thoughts immediately after seeing the number 2016 itself:

  • Oh, that’s divisible by 9
  • Well, obviously that’s divisible by 4
  • Huh, 20 and 16 are consecutive multiples of 4
  • 2, 0, 1, 6 – that’s three evens and an odd
  • I wonder what the prime factors of 2016 are…

Why? Because the GMAT – and its no-calculator-permitted format for the Quant Section – is a test that highly values and rewards mathematical fluency. The GMAT tests patterns in, and properties of, numbers quite a bit. Whenever you see a number flash before your eyes, you should be thinking about even vs. odd, prime vs. composite, positive vs. negative, “Is that number a square or not?” etc. And, mathematically speaking, the GMAT is a multiplication/division test more than a test of anything else, so as you process numbers you should be ready to factor and divide them at a moment’s notice.

Those who quickly see relationships between numbers are at a huge advantage: they’re not just ready to operate on them when they have to, they’re also anticipating what that operation might be so that they don’t have to start from scratch wondering how and where to get started.

With 2016, for example:

The last two digits are divisible by 4, so you know it’s divisible by 4.

The sum of the digits (2 + 0 + 1 + 6) is 9, a multiple of 9, so you know it’s divisible by 9 (and also by 3).

So without much thinking or prompting, you should already have that number broken down in your head. 16 divided by 4 is 4 and 2000 divided by 4 is 500, so you should be hoping that the number 504 (also divisible by 9) shows up somewhere in a denominator or division operation (or that 4 or 9 does).

So, for example, if you were given a problem:

In honor of the year 2016, a donor has purchased 2016 books to be distributed evenly among the elementary schools in a certain school district. If each school must receive the same number of books, and there are to be no books remaining, which of the following is NOT a number of books that each school could receive?

(A) 18

(B) 36

(C) 42

(D) 54

(E) 56

You shouldn’t have to spend any time thinking about choices A and B, because you know that 2016 is divisible by 4 and by 9, so it’s definitely divisible by 36 which means it’s also divisible by every factor of 36 (including 18). You don’t need to do long division on each answer choice – your number fluency has taken care of that for you.

From there, you should look at the other numbers and get a quick sense of their prime factors:

42 = 2 * 3 * 7 – You know that 2016 is divisible by 2 and 3, but what about 7?

54 = 2 * 3 * 3 * 3 – You know that 2016 is divisible by that 2 and that it’s divisible by 9, so you can cover two of the 3s. But is 2016 divisible by three 3s?

56 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 7 – You know that two of the 2s are covered, and it’s quick math to divide 2016 by 4 (as you saw above, it’s 504). Since 504 is still even, you know that you can cover all three 2s, but what about 7?

Here’s where good test-taking strategy can give you a quick leg up: to this point, a savvy 700-scorer shouldn’t have had to do any real “work,” but testing all three remaining answer choices could now get a bit labor intensive. Unless you recognize this: for C and E, the only real question to be asked is “Is 2016 divisible by 7?” After all, you’re already accounted for the 2 and 3 out of 42, and you’ve already accounted for the three 2s out of 56.

7 is the only one you haven’t checked for. And since there can only be one correct answer, 2016 must be divisible by 7…otherwise you’d have to say that C and E are both correct.

But even if you’re not willing to take that leap, you may still have the hunch that 7 is probably a factor of 2016, so you can start with choice D. Once you’ve divided 2016 by 9 (here you may have to go long division, or you can factor it out), you’re left with 224. And that’s not divisible by 3. Therefore, you know that 2016 cannot be divided evenly into sets of 54, so answer choice D must be correct. And more importantly, good number fluency should have allowed you to do that relatively quickly without the need for much (if any) long division.

So if you didn’t immediately think “divisible by 4 and 9!” when you saw the year 2016 pop up, make it your New Year’s resolution to start thinking that way. When you see numbers this year, start seeing them like a GMAT expert, taking note of clear factors and properties and being ready to quickly operate on that number.

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.

How to Choose the Right Number for a GMAT Variable Problem

Pi to the 36th digitWhen you begin studying for the GMAT, you will quickly discover that most of the strategies are, on the surface, fairly simple. It will not come as a terribly big surprise that selecting numbers and doing arithmetic is often an easier way of attacking a problem than attempting to perform complex algebra. There is, however, a big difference between understanding a strategy in the abstract and having honed that strategy to the point that it can be implemented effectively under pressure.

Now, you may be thinking, “How hard can it possibly be to pick numbers? I see an “x” and I decide x = 5. Not so complicated.” The art is in learning how to pick workable numbers for each question type. Different questions will require different types of numbers to create a scenario that truly is simpler than the algebra. The harder the problem, the more finesse that will be required when selecting numbers. Let’s start with a problem that doesn’t require much strategy:

If n=4p, where p is prime number greater than 2, how many different positive even divisors does n have, including n? 

(A) 2

(B) 3

(C) 4

(D) 6 

(E) 8 

Okay in this problem, “p” is a prime number greater than 2. So let’s say p = 3. If n = 4p, and 4p = 4*3 = 12. Let’s list out the factors of 12: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12. The even factors here are 2, 4, 6, 12. There are 4 of them. So the answer is C. Not so bad, right? Just pick the first simple number that pops into your head and you’re off to the races. Bring on the test!

If only it were that simple for all questions. So let’s try a much harder question to illustrate the pitfalls of adhering to an approach that’s overly mechanistic:

The volume of water in a certain tank is x percent greater than it was one week ago. If r percent of the current volume of water in the tank is removed, the resulting volume will be 90 percent of the volume it was one week ago. What is the value of r in terms of x?

(A) x + 10

(B) 10x + 1

(C) 100(x + 10)

(D) 100 * (x+10)/(x+100)

(E) 100 * (10x + 1)/(10x+10)

You’ll notice quickly that if you simply declare that x = 10 and r =20, you may run into trouble. Say, for example, that the starting value from one week ago was 100 liters. If x = 10, a 10% increase will lead to a volume of 110 liters. If we remove 20% of that 110, we’ll be removing .20*110 = 22 liters, giving us 110-22 = 88 liters. But we’re also told that the resulting volume is 90% of the original volume! 88 is not 90% of 100, therefore our numbers aren’t valid. In instances like this, we need to pick some simple starting numbers and then calculate the numbers that will be required to fit the parameters of the question.

So again, say the volume one week ago was 100 liters. Let’s say that x = 20%, so the volume, after water is added, will be 100 + 20 = 120 liters.

We know that once water is removed, the resulting volume will be 90% of the original. If the original was 100, the volume, once water is removed, will be 100*.90 = 90 liters.

Now, rather than arbitrarily picking an “r”, we’ll calculate it based on the numbers we have. To summarize:

Start: 100 liters

After adding water: 120 liters

After removing water: 90 liters

We now need to calculate what percent of those 120 liters need to be removed to get down to 90. Using our trusty percent change formula [(Change/Original) * 100] we’ll get (30/120) * 100 = 25%.

Thus, when x = 20, r =25. Now all we have to do is substitute “x” with “20” in the answer choices until we hit our target of 25.

Remember that in these types of problems, we want to start at the bottom of the answer choice options and work our way up:

(E) 100 * (10x + 1)/(10x+10)

100 * (10*20 + 1)/(10*20+10) = 201/210. No need to simplify. There’s no way this equals 25.

(D) 100 * (x+10)/(x+100)

100 * (20+10)/(20+100) = 100 * (30/120) = 25. That’s it! We’re done. The correct answer is D.

Takeaways: Internalizing strategies is the first step in your process of preparing for the GMAT. Once you’ve learned these strategies, you need to practice them in a variety of contexts until you’ve fully absorbed how each strategy needs to be tweaked to fit the contours of the question. In some cases, you can pick a single random number. Other times, there will be multiple variables, so you’ll have to pick one or two numbers to start and then solve for the remaining numbers so that you don’t violate the conditions of the problem. Accept that you may have to make adjustments mid-stream. Your first selection may produce hairy arithmetic. There are no style point on the GMAT, so stay flexible, cultivate back-up plans, and remember that mental agility trumps rote memorization every time.

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

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

Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Calculating the Probability of Intersecting Events

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomWe know our basic probability formulas (for two events), which are very similar to the formulas for sets:

P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) – P(A and B)

P(A) is the probability that event A will occur.

P(B) is the probability that event B will occur.

P(A or B) gives us the union; i.e. the probability that at least one of the two events will occur.

P(A and B) gives us the intersection; i.e. the probability that both events will occur.

Now, how do you find the value of P(A and B)? The value of P(A and B) depends on the relation between event A and event B. Let’s discuss three cases:

1) A and B are independent events

If A and B are independent events such as “the teacher will give math homework,” and “the temperature will exceed 30 degrees celsius,” the probability that both will occur is the product of their individual probabilities.

Say, P(A) = P(the teacher will give math homework) = 0.4

P(B) = P(the temperature will exceed 30 degrees celsius) = 0.3

P(A and B will occur) = 0.4 * 0.3 = 0.12

2) A and B are mutually exclusive events

If A and B are mutually exclusive events, this means they are events that cannot take place at the same time, such as “flipping a coin and getting heads” and “flipping a coin and getting tails.” You cannot get both heads and tails at the same time when you flip a coin. Similarly, “It will rain today” and “It will not rain today” are mutually exclusive events – only one of the two will happen.

In these cases, P(A and B will occur) = 0

3) A and B are related in some other way

Events A and B could be related but not in either of the two ways discussed above – “The stock market will rise by 100 points” and “Stock S will rise by 10 points” could be two related events, but are not independent or mutually exclusive. Here, the probability that both occur would need to be given to you. What we can find here is the range in which this probability must lie.

Maximum value of P(A and B):

The maximum value of P(A and B) is the lower of the two probabilities, P(A) and P(B).

Say P(A) = 0.4 and P(B) = 0.7

The maximum probability of intersection can be 0.4 because P(A) = 0.4. If probability of one event is 0.4, probability of both occurring can certainly not be more than 0.4.

Minimum value of P(A and B):

To find the minimum value of P(A and B), consider that any probability cannot exceed 1, so the maximum P(A or B) is 1.

Remember, P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) – P(A and B)

1 = 0.4 + 0.7 – P(A and B)

P(A and B) = 0.1 (at least)

Therefore, the actual value of P(A and B) will lie somewhere between 0.1 and 0.4 (both inclusive).

Now let’s take a look at a GMAT question using these fundamentals:

There is a 10% chance that Tigers will not win at all during the whole season. There is a 20% chance that Federer will not play at all in the whole season. What is the greatest possible probability that the Tigers will win and Federer will play during the season?

(A) 55%

(B) 60%

(C) 70%

(D) 72%

(E) 80%

Let’s review what we are given.

P(Tigers will not win at all) = 0.1

P(Tigers will win) = 1 – 0.1 = 0.9

P(Federer will not play at all) = 0.2

P(Federer will play) = 1 – 0.2 = 0.8

Do we know the relation between the two events “Tigers will win” (A) and “Federer will play” (B)? No. They are not mutually exclusive and we do not know whether they are independent.

If they are independent, then the P(A and B) = 0.9 * 0.8 = 0.72

If the relation between the two events is unknown, then the maximum value of P(A and B) will be 0.8 because P(B), the lesser of the two given probabilities, is 0.8.

Since 0.8, or 80%, is the greater value, the greatest possibility that the Tigers will win and Federer will play during the season is 80%. Therefore, our answer is E.

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have free online GMAT seminars running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on FacebookYouTubeGoogle+, 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!

GMAT Tip of the Week: Your GMAT New Year’s Resolution

GMAT Tip of the WeekHappy New Year! If you’re reading this on January 1, 2016, chances are you’ve made your New Year’s resolution to succeed on the GMAT and apply to business school. (Why else read a GMAT-themed blog on a holiday?) And if so, you’re in luck: anecdotally speaking, students who study for and take the GMAT in the first half of the year, well before any major admissions deadlines, tend to have an easier time grasping material and taking the test. They have the benefit of an open mind, the time to invest in the process, and the lack of pressure that comes from needing a massive score ASAP.

This all relates to how you should approach your New Year’s resolution to study for the GMAT. Take advantage of that luxury of time and lessened-pressure, and study the right way – patiently and thoroughly.

What does that mean? Let’s equate the GMAT to MBA admissions New Year’s resolution to the most common New Year’s resolution of all: weight loss.

Someone with a GMAT score in the 300s or 400s is not unlike someone with a weight in the 300s or 400s (in pounds). There are easy points to gain just like there are easy pounds to drop. For weight loss, that means sweating away water weight and/or crash-dieting and starving one’s self as long as one can. As boxers, wrestlers, and mixed-martial artists know quite well, it’s not that hard to drop even 10 pounds in a day or two…but those aren’t long-lasting pounds to drop.

The GMAT equivalent is sheer memorization score gain. Particularly if your starting point is way below average (which is around 540 these days), you can probably memorize your way to a 40-60 point gain by cramming as many rules and formulas as you can. And unlike weight loss, you won’t “give those points” back. But here’s what’s a lot more like weight loss: if you don’t change your eating/study habits, you’re not going to get near where you want to go with a crash diet or cram session. And ultimately those cram sessions can prove to be counterproductive over the long run.

The GMAT is a test not of surface knowledge, but of deep understanding and of application. And the the problem with a memorization-based approach is that it doesn’t include much understanding or application. So while there are plenty of questions in the below-average bucket that will ask you pretty directly about a rule or relationship, the problems that you’ll see as you attempt to get to above average and beyond will hinge more on your ability to deeply understand a concept or to apply a concept to a situation where you might not see that it even applies.

So be leery of the study plan that nets you 40-50 points in a few weeks (unless of course that 40 takes you from 660 to 700) but then holds you steady at that level because you’re only remembering and not *knowing* or *understanding*. When you’re studying in January for a test that you don’t need to take until the summer or fall, you have the luxury of starting patiently and building to a much higher score.

Your job this next month isn’t to memorize every rule under the sun; it’s to make sure you fundamentally understand the building blocks of arithmetic, algebra, logic, and grammar as it relates to meaning. Your score might not jump as high in January, but it’ll be higher when decision day comes later this fall.

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.

Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Basic Operations for GMAT Inequalities

Quarter Wit, Quarter WisdomWe know that we can perform all basic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division on two equations:

a = b

c = d

When these numbers are equal, we know that:

a + c = b + d (Valid)

a – c = b – d (Valid)

a * c = b * d (Valid)

a / c = b / d (Valid assuming c and d are not 0)

When can we add, subtract, multiply or divide two inequalities? There are rules that we need to follow for those. Today let’s discuss those rules and the concepts behind them.

Addition:

We can add two inequalities when they have the same inequality sign.

a < b

c < d

a + c < b + d (Valid)

Conceptually, it makes sense, right? If a is less than b and c is less than d, then the sum of a and c will be less than the sum of b and d.

On the same lines:

a > b

c > d

a + c > b + d (Valid)

Case 2: What happens when the inequalities have opposite signs?

a > b

c < d

We need to multiply one inequality by -1 to get the two to have the same inequality sign.

-c > -d

Now we can add them.

a – c > b – d

Subtraction:

We can subtract two inequalities when they have opposite signs:

a > b

c < d

a – c > b – d (The result will take the sign of the first inequality)

Conceptually, think about it like this: from a greater number (a is greater than b), if we subtract a smaller number (c is smaller than d), the result (a – c) will be greater than the result obtained when we subtract the greater number from the smaller number (b – d).

Note that this result is the same as that obtained when we added the two inequalities after changing the sign (see Case 2 above). We cannot subtract inequalities if they have the same sign, so it is better to always stick to addition. If the inequalities have the same sign, we simply add them. If the inequalities have opposite signs, we multiply one of them by -1 (to get the same sign) and then add them (in effect, we subtract them).

Why can we not subtract two inequalities when they have the same inequality sign, such as when a > b and c > d?

Say, we have 3 > 1 and 5 > 1.

If we subtract these two, we get 3 – 5 > 1 – 1, or -2 > 0 which is not valid.

If instead it were 3 > 1 and 2 > 1, we would get 1 > 0 which is valid.

We don’t know how much greater one term is from the other and hence we cannot subtract inequalities when their inequality signs are the same.

Multiplication:

Here, the constraint is the same as that in addition (the inequality signs should be the same) with an extra constraint: both sides of both inequalities should be non-negative. If we do not know whether both sides are non-negative or not, we cannot multiply the inequalities.

If a, b, c and d are all non negative,

a < b

c < d

a*c < b*d (Valid)

When two greater numbers are multiplied together, the result will be greater.

Take some examples to see what happens in Case 1, or more numbers are negative:

-2 < -1

10 < 30

Multiply to get: -20 < -30 (Not valid)

-2 < 7

-8 < 1

Multiply to get: 16 < 7 (Not valid)

Division:

Here, the constraint is the same as that in subtraction (the inequality signs should be opposite) with an extra constraint: both sides of both inequalities should be non-negative (obviously, 0 should not be in the denominator). If we do not know whether both sides are positive or not, we cannot divide the inequalities.

a < b

c > d

a/c < b/d (given all a, b, c and d are positive)

The final inequality takes the sign of the numerator.

Think of it conceptually: a smaller number is divided by a greater number, so the result will be a smaller number.

Take some examples to see what happens in Case 1, or more numbers are negative.

1 < 2

10 > -30

Divide to get 1/10 < -2/30 (Not valid)

Takeaways: 

Addition: We can add two inequalities when they have the same inequality signs.

Subtraction: We can subtract two inequalities when they have opposite inequality signs.

Multiplication: We can multiply two inequalities when they have the same inequality signs and both sides of both inequalities are non-negative.

Division: We can divide two inequalities when they have opposite inequality signs and both sides of both inequalities are non-negative (0 should not be in the denominator).

Getting ready to take the GMAT? We have free online GMAT seminars running all the time. And, be sure to follow us on FacebookYouTube, 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!

How to Make Rate Questions Easy on the GMAT

Integrated Reasoning StrategiesI recently wrote about the reciprocal relationship between rate and time in “rate” questions. Occasionally, students will ask why it’s important to understand this particular rule, given that it’s possible to solve most questions without employing it.

There are two reasons: the first is that knowledge of this relationship can convert incredibly laborious arithmetic into a very straightforward calculation. And the second is that this same logic can be applied to other types of questions. The goal, when preparing for the GMAT, isn’t to internalize hundreds of strategies; it’s to absorb a handful that will prove helpful on a variety of questions.

The other night, I had a tutoring student present me with the following question:

It takes Carlos 9 minutes to drive from home to work at an average rate of 22 miles per hour.  How many minutes will it take Carlos to cycle from home to work along the same route at an average rate of 6 miles per hour?

(A) 26

(B) 33

(C) 36

(D) 44

(E) 48

This question doesn’t seem that hard, conceptually speaking, but here is how my student attempted to do it: first, he saw that the time to complete the trip was given in minutes and the rate of the trip was given in hours so he did a simple unit conversion, and determined that it took Carlos (9/60) hours to complete his trip.

He then computed the distance of the trip using the following equation: (9/60) hours * 22 miles/hour = (198/60) miles. He then set up a second equation: 6miles/hour * T = (198/60) miles. At this point, he gave up, not wanting to wrestle with the hairy arithmetic. I don’t blame him.

Watch how much easier it is if we remember our reciprocal relationship between rate and time. We have two scenarios here. In Scenario 1, the time is 9 minutes and the rate is 22 mph. In Scenario 2, the rate is 6 mph, and we want the time, which we’ll call ‘T.” The ratio of the rates of the two scenarios is 22/6. Well, if the times have a reciprocal relationship, we know the ratio of the times must be 6/22. So we know that 9/T = 6/22.

Cross-multiply to get 6T = 9*22.

Divide both sides by 6 to get T = 9*22/6.

We can rewrite this as T = (9*22)/(3*2) = 3*11 = 33, so the answer is B.

The other point I want to stress here is that there isn’t anything magical about rate questions. In any equation that takes the form a*b = c, a and b will have a reciprocal relationship, provided that we hold c constant. Take “quantity * unit price = total cost”, for example. We can see intuitively that if we double the price, we’ll cut the quantity of items we can afford in half. Again, this relationship can be exploited to save time.

Take the following data sufficiency question:

Pat bought 5 lbs. of apples. How many pounds of pears could Pat have bought for the same amount of money? 

(1) One pound of pears costs $0.50 more than one pound of apples. 

(2) One pound of pears costs 1 1/2 times as much as one pound of apples. 

Statement 1 can be tested by picking numbers. Say apples cost $1/pound. The total cost of 5 pounds of apples would be $5.  If one pound of pears cost $.50 more than one pound of apples, then one pound of pears would cost $1.50. The number of pounds of pears that could be purchased for $5 would be 5/1.5 = 10/3. So that’s one possibility.

Now say apples cost $2/pound. The total cost of 5 pounds of apples would be $10. If one pound of pears cost $.50 more than one pound of apples, then one pound of pears would cost $2.50. The number of pounds of pears that could be purchased for $10 would be 10/2.5 = 4. Because we get different results, this Statement alone is not sufficient to answer the question.

Statement 2 tells us that one pound of pears costs 1 ½ times (or 3/2 times) as much as one pound of apples. Remember that reciprocal relationship! If the ratio of the price per pound for pears and the price per pound for apples is 3/2, then the ratio of their respective quantities must be 2/3. If we could buy five pounds of apples for a given cost, then we must be able to buy (2/3) * 5 = (10/3) pounds of pears for that same cost. Because we can find a single unique value, Statement 2 alone is sufficient to answer the question, and we know our answer must be B.

Takeaway: Remember that in “rate” questions, time and rate will have a reciprocal relationship, and that in “total cost” questions, quantity and unit price will have a reciprocal relationship. Now the time you save on these problem-types can be allocated to other questions, creating a virtuous cycle in which your time management, your accuracy, and your confidence all improve in turn.

*GMATPrep questions 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 FacebookYouTubeGoogle+ and Twitter!

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