# How Does Scoring Differ Between the GMAT and the GRE?

It’s a new year, and thus a good time to undertake a new intellectual challenge. For me, this challenge will take the form of teaching new classes on GRE preparation. Because the test has changed so much over the years, I thought it might be interesting to delineate my impressions of the newer incarnation, both in terms of how the GRE differs from the GMAT and in terms of how the GRE has evolved over time.

### Observation 1: The formats are different.

The and two Verbal sections of 30 minutes each, while the GMAT has a single Quantitative section and a single Verbal section of 75 minutes each. Moreover, while the GMAT is adaptive by the question, the GRE is adaptive by section.  Do well on the first GRE Quantitative section and the entire next section will escalate in difficulty. (My impression: while the GRE does adjust from section to section, it does so in a way that feels significantly subtler than the GMAT exam.)

### Observation 2: The two Quantitative sections on the GRE are much easier than the one Quantitative section on the GMAT.

This is typically the most conspicuous difference test-takers notice. In our GMAT courses, we have a skill-builder section that allows students to re-master the basics before delving into a discussion about the types of higher-order thinking the GMAT will require. In other words, it’s not enough to simply recall the various rules, axioms, and equations we’ve forgotten from high school – those foundational elements will need to be applied in creative ways. While the GRE does require some higher-order thinking, on many quantitative questions simply having the foundational skills is enough to arrive at the correct answer. The strategic element is more about how to arrive at these answers in a timely manner and how to avoid panicking on the few hairier questions that will likely come your way.

Moreover, in lieu of the GMAT’s dreaded Data Sufficiency questions, the GRE has Quantitative Comparison questions, in which a test-taker is asked to compare the relative magnitude of two quantities – it’s possible that one quantity is larger than the other, that the two quantities are equal, or that it’s not possible to determine which quantity is larger. After grappling with knotty Data Sufficiency questions, a test-taker is likely to find Quantitative Comparison to be blessedly straightforward. Better yet, the GRE will allow you to return to questions once you’ve answered them, granting test-takers more opportunities to weed out careless mistakes. If that weren’t enough, on the GRE, you’ll have access to an on-screen calculator. So there are perks.

### Observation 3: The GRE’s scoring algorithm is much less forgiving than the GMAT’s.

Of course, there’s a rub. The GRE’s Quantitative section might be easier in terms of the difficulty level of the questions, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s easier to score well. If you’re able to ascend to the more difficult question levels on the GMAT, you can miss many of them and still do well. Not so on the GRE, where you need to be pretty close to perfect to achieve an elite score.

### Observation 4:  The Verbal on the GRE can be trickier.

Like the GMAT, the GRE has a Reading Comprehension component. But unlike the GMAT, the GRE questions will often ask you to select “all that apply,” meaning that you may need to select as many as three correct assertions in order to receive credit for a question. Select two of the three? You get the question wrong. No partial credit. And while the GRE doesn’t have any Sentence Correction questions, it does have Sentence Completion questions, and these questions often come down to either recognizing somewhat obscure vocabulary words or utilizing more familiar words in less familiar ways.

Ultimately, in my experience, most test-takers will score at comparable percentile levels if they were to take both exams. Choosing which test is better for you might be a question of fit or comfort more than anything else. And while there’s a fair amount of overlap between the two exams, they feel different enough that you wouldn’t want to prepare for one and simply assume that you’re ready for the other. Each test has its own strategic texture and its own idiosyncrasies, so you want to be sure that you’ve worked through a curriculum specifically designed for the test in question before you sit for the exam.

Regardless of whether you take the GMAT or GRE, Veritas Prep is committed to helping you prepare to do your best on test day! Jump start your prep by taking advantage of Veritas Prep’s various free GMAT resources and to determine which test is right for you.

# How to Answer GMAT Questions That are About an Unfamiliar Topic

Usually, GMAT questions that are based on your field of work or interests are simple to comprehend and relatively easy to answer correctly. But what happens when, say, an engineer gets a question based on psychiatry? Is he or she bound to fail? No.

Remember that the GMAT offers a level playing field for test takers from different backgrounds – it doesn’t matter whether your major was literature or physics. If you feel lost on a question about renaissance painters, remember that the guy next to you is lost on the problem involving planetary systems.

So how can you successfully handle GMAT questions on any topic? By sticking to the basics. The logic and reasoning required to answer these questions will stay the same no matter which field the information in the question stem comes from.

To give an example of this, let’s today take a look at a GMAT question involving psychoanalysis:

Studies in restaurants show that the tips left by customers who pay their bill in cash tend to be larger when the bill is presented on a tray that bears a credit-card logo. Consumer psychologists hypothesize that simply seeing a credit-card logo makes many credit-card holders willing to spend more because it reminds them that their spending power exceeds the cash they have immediately available.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the psychologists’ interpretation of the studies?

(A) The effect noted in the studies is not limited to patrons who have credit cards.
(B) Patrons who are under financial pressure from their credit-card obligations tend to tip less when presented with a restaurant bill on a tray with credit-card logo than when the tray has no logo.
(C) In virtually all of the cases in the studies, the patrons who paid bills in cash did not possess credit cards.
(D) In general, restaurant patrons who pay their bills in cash leave larger tips than do those who pay by credit card.
(E) The percentage of restaurant bills paid with given brand of credit card increases when that credit card’s logo is displayed on the tray with which the bill is prepared.

Let’s break down the argument:

Argument: Studies show that cash tips left by customers are larger when the bill is presented on a tray that bears a credit-card logo.

Why would that be? Why would there be a difference in customer behavior when the tray has no logo from when the tray has a credit card logo? Psychologists’ hypothesize that seeing a credit-card logo reminds people of the spending power given by the credit card they carry (and that their spending power exceeds the actual cash they have right now).

The question asks us to support the psychologists’ interpretation. And what is the psychologists’ interpretation of the studies? It is that seeing a logo reminds people of their own credit card status. Say we change the argument a little by adding a line:

Argument: Studies show that cash tips left by customers are larger when the bill is presented on a tray that bears a credit-card logo. Patrons under financial pressure from credit-card obligations tend to tip less when presented with a restaurant bill on a tray with credit-card logo than when the tray has no logo.

Now, does the psychologists’ interpretation make even more sense? The psychologists’ interpretation is only that “seeing a logo reminds people of their own credit card status.” The fact “that their spending power exceeds the cash they have right now” explains the higher tips. If we are given that some customers tip more upon seeing that card logo and some tip less upon seeing it, it makes sense, right? Different people have different credit card obligation status, hence, people are reminded of their own card obligation status and they tip accordingly.

Answer choice B increases the probability that the psychologists’ interpretation is true because it tells you that in the cases of very high credit card obligations, customers tip less. This is what you would expect if the psychologists’ interpretation were correct.

In simpler terms, the logic here is similar to the following situation:

A: After 12 hours of night time sleep, I can’t study.
B: Yeah, because your sleep pattern is linked to your level of concentration. After a long sleep, your mind is still muddled and lazy so you can’t study.
A: After only 4 hrs of night time sleep, I can’t study either.

Does B’s theory make sense? Sure! B’s theory is that “sleep pattern is linked to level of concentration.” If A sleeps too much, her concentration is affected. If she sleeps too little, again her concentration is affected. So B’s theory certainly makes more sense.

(E) The percentage of restaurant bills paid with given brand of credit card increases when that credit card’s logo is displayed on the tray with which the bill is prepared.

This option supports the hypothesis that credit card logos remind people of their own card – not of their card obligations. The psychologists’ interpretation talks about the logo reminding people of their card status (high spending power or high obligations). Hence, this option is not correct.

Now let’s examine the rest of the answer choices to see why they are also incorrect:

(A) The effect noted in the studies is not limited to patrons who have credit cards.

This argument is focused only on credit cards, not on credit cards and their logos, so this is irrelevant.

(C) In virtually all of the cases in the studies, the patrons who paid bills in cash did not possess credit cards.

This option questions the validity of the psychologists’ interpretation. Hence, this is also not correct.

(D) In general, restaurant patrons who pay their bills in cash leave larger tips than do those who pay by credit card.

This argument deals with people who have credit cards but are tipping by cash, hence this is also irrelevant.

We hope you see that if you approach GMAT questions logically and stick to the basics, it is not hard to interpret and solve them, even if they include information from an unfamiliar field.

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!

# Online GMAT Verbal Practice: Samples and Questions to Guide Your Test Prep

The Verbal section of the GMAT measures your ability to comprehend what you read, evaluate arguments, and change elements of sentences to make them correct. One way to prep for this section is to complete sample GMAT Verbal questions. Sample questions give you an idea of what you can expect when you sit down to take the exam. Learning the different types of problems you might encounter will help you to study for Verbal GMAT questions.

GMAT Verbal practice questions in the Reading Comprehension section require you to read a passage that’s followed by several multiple-choice questions. These questions may ask you to draw an inference or make a conclusion about what you read. Also, there are questions that gauge how well you understood statements made within the passage. A question on a GMAT Verbal practice test might start with, “The primary purpose of the passage is to …” or, “The author is critical of X for the following reasons … .” It’s important to carefully read and evaluate the passage before delving into the questions so you have the information you need to make the right choice.

Taking a GMAT Verbal practice test online is an excellent way to become familiar with the format as well as the content of these questions. Plus, tackling practice questions helps you to get into the habit of reading with the purpose of finding out just what the author is trying to say.

The Critical Reasoning Section
The Critical Reasoning section on the GMAT measures your ability to analyze and evaluate an argument. Practice questions on this topic may include a short argument or one that is several sentences long. There are several multiple-choice options for each question that follows the argument. One example of a typical question might start with, “This argument assumes that … .” Another example of a question you’ll likely encounter starts with, “This argument conveys the following … .” You’ll have to look closely at the points of an argument to determine what the author is trying to convey.

The Sentence Correction Section
To do well on GMAT Verbal practice test questions that deal with Sentence Correction, you must have a grasp of proper grammar and sentence structure. You must also recognize a sentence that conveys meaning in an effective way. Each question starts with a passage that includes an underlined portion. Your job is to consider each of the five options and choose the one that best completes the sentence. This requires you to look at various elements throughout the passage, such as verb tenses and noun usage as well as the use of “like” or “as.” The answer option you select must agree with the elements in the rest of the passage.

Preparing for the Verbal Section With a Professional Tutor
Completing lots of GMAT Verbal practice questions is one way to prepare for this portion of the test. Another way is to study with a tutor who scored in the 99th percentile on the exam. That’s exactly what we offer at Veritas Prep. Our talented instructors prep you for the test using our thorough GMAT curriculum. We teach you how to apply the facts and information you’ve learned so you arrive at the correct answer for each question. We also provide you with strategies, tips, and lessons that strengthen your higher-order thinking skills. These are skills you will need well after you conquer the GMAT. We move way beyond memorization of facts – we teach you to think like a business executive!

Wondering where to begin? You can take one of our GMAT practice tests for free. The results can highlight the skills you’ll need to work on before you sit down to take the actual computer-based test. Our GMAT prep courses are ideal if you want to interact with other students who are as determined as you are to master the exam. Or, if you prefer, you can take advantage of our private online tutoring services. We know you have a busy work schedule as well as family obligations, so we make it easy to study with an expert on the Verbal section as well as all of the other sections on the GMAT. Get in touch with us to begin preparing for the GMAT the right way!

# Evaluating “Useful to Evaluate” Critical Reasoning Questions – Part II

Last week we looked at how to handle “useful to evaluate” questions in the Verbal section, and we left you with a tricky “useful to evaluate except” question. Let’s take a look at that problem today. “Except” questions are usually more difficult to deal with since we need to find four “correct” options (which we are not as used to). So, let’s take a look at this question:

Following several years of declining advertising sales, the Greenville Times reorganized its advertising sales force two years ago. Before the reorganization, the sales force was organised geographically, with some sales representatives concentrating on city center businesses and others concentrating on different outlying regions. The reorganization attempted to increase the sales representatives’ knowledge of clients’ businesses by having each sales representative deal with only one type of industry or of retailing. After the reorganization, advertising sales increased.

In assessing whether the improvement in advertising sales can properly be attributed to the reorganization, it would be helpful to find out each of the following EXCEPT:

(A) Two years ago, what proportion of the Greenville Times’ total revenue was generated by advertising sales?
(B) Has the circulation of the Greenville Times increased substantially in the last two years?
(C) Has there been a substantial turnover in personnel in the advertising sales force over the last two years?
(D) Before the reorganization, had sales representatives found it difficult to keep up with relevant developments in all types of businesses to which they are assigned?
(E) Has the economy in Greenville and the surrounding regions been growing rapidly over the last two years?

Let’s first break down what the argument says:

• The paper reorganized the advertising sales team two years back.
• Advertising sales increased after reorganisation.

Now, we want to figure out whether the increase actually happened due to the reorganization; in other words, we need to evaluate what else could have caused the increase in sales, if not the reorganization. Say the lead of the sales team changed two years back – it is possible that he is responsible for the increase in revenue. Four of the five answer choices will raise similar questions, while the leftover option (which will be our answer) will not. Let’s take a look at each of the answer choices:

(A) Two years ago, what proportion of the Greenville Times’ total revenue was generated by the advertising sales?

The proportion of advertising sales as a part of the total revenue is immaterial to us – we only need to evaluate why the advertising sales have increased. It is possible that the revenue from other sources has increased much more than the revenue from advertising sales, and hence, advertising sales could be a smaller proportion of the overall revenue now, however this doesn’t matter at all. This option has nothing to do with the increase in advertising sales, and hence, is the correct answer.

Let’s take a look at all the other options too, just to be safe:

(B) Has the circulation of the Greenville Times increased substantially in the last two years?

This answer choice can be evaluated in two ways:

1. Yes, it has increased – If the circulation increased substantially in the last two years, that could have led to the increase in advertising sales.
2. No, it has not increased – If the circulation hasn’t increased substantially, then there must be another reason for the increase in advertising sales. In that case, the reorganization could be the reason.

These two answers affect the argument differently, and hence, this option will be useful in evaluating the argument.

(C) Has there been a substantial turnover in personnel in the advertising sales force over the last two years?

Again, the answer choice can be evaluated in two ways:

1. Yes, there has – If there has been a substantial turnover in personnel, it is possible that more capable people have been hired, which could have led to higher advertising sales.
2. No, there hasn’t – If there hasn’t been a substantial turnover in personnel, then there would need to be another reason for the increased advertising sales. In that case, the reorganization could be the reason.

The two answers affect the argument differently, so this option will also be useful in evaluating the argument.

(D) Before the reorganization, had sales representatives found it difficult to keep up with relevant developments in all types of businesses to which they are assigned?

This option can also be evaluated in two ways:

1. Yes, they did find it difficult – Did reorganization make it easier to keep track of relevant developments? If yes, then the reorganization could be responsible for the increase in sales.
2. No, they did not find it difficult – If they did not find it difficult to keep up with relevant developments, then we cannot say whether the reorganization was responsible for the increase in sales or not.

These two responses affect the argument differently. Hence, this option will be useful in evaluating the argument.

(E) Has the economy in Greenville and the surrounding regions been growing rapidly over the last two years?

Answer choice E can also be evaluated in two ways:

1. Yes, it has – If the economy has been growing rapidly over the past two years, it could be the reason for higher advertising sales. Then we may not be able to attribute the improvement in advertising sales to the reorganization.
2. No it has not – If there has been no such growth in the economy, then reorganization could be the reason for higher advertising sales.

Again, the two responses affect the argument differently, so this option will also be useful in evaluating the argument.

We see that B, C, D and E are all useful in evaluating the argument. Therefore, our answer is A. We hope you will find it easier to handle such questions in the future!

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!

# Evaluating “Useful to Evaluate” Critical Reasoning Questions on the GMAT

In today’s post, we will look at how to answer “useful to evaluate” Critical Reasoning questions in the Verbal section of the GMAT. Arguably, this is one of the toughest question types for test-takers to tackle (perhaps right after boldfaced questions).

To answer this type of question, all you will need to do is follow these six simple steps:

1) Identify the conclusion.
3) Answer it with a “yes” and figure out whether it affects the conclusion.
4) Answer it with a “no” and figure out whether it affects the conclusion.
5) Repeat this for all other answer choices.
6) Only one option will affect the conclusion differently in the two cases – that is your answer.

Let’s illustrate this concept with a problem:

In a certain wildlife park, park rangers are able to track the movements of many rhinoceroses because those animals wear radio collars. When, as often happens, a collar slips off, it is put back on. Putting a collar on a rhinoceros involves immobilizing the animal by shooting it with a tranquilizer dart. Female rhinoceroses that have been frequently re-collared have significantly lower fertility rates than uncollared females. Probably, therefore, some substance in the tranquilizer inhibits fertility.

In evaluating the argument, it would be most useful to determine which of the following?

(A) Whether there are more collared female rhinoceroses than uncollared female rhinoceroses in the park.
(B) How the tranquilizer that is used for immobilizing rhinoceroses differs, if at all, from tranquilizers used in working with other large mammals
(C) How often park rangers need to use tranquilizer darts to immobilize rhinoceroses for reasons other than attaching radio collars
(D) Whether male rhinoceroses in the wildlife park lose their collars any more often than the park’s female rhinoceroses do
(E) Whether radio collars are the only practical means that park rangers have for tracking the movements of rhinoceroses in the park

First, we need to break down the argument to find the premises and the conclusion:

• Many rhinoceroses wear radio collars.
• Often, collars slip.
• When a collar slips, the animal is shot with a tranquilizer to re-collar.
• The fertility of frequently re-collared females is less than the fertility of uncollared females.
• Conclusion: Some substance in the tranquilizer inhibits fertility.

Let’s take a look at each answer choice:

(A) Whether there are more collared female rhinoceroses than uncollared female rhinoceroses in the park.

Even if there are more collared female rhinoceroses than uncollared females, this does not affect the argument’s conclusion. This answer choice talks about collared females vs. uncollared females; we are comparing the fertility of re-collared females with that of uncollared females. Anyway, how many of either type there are doesn’t matter. So, whether you answer “yes” or “no” to this question, it is immaterial.

(B) How the tranquilizer that is used for immobilizing rhinoceroses differs, if at all, from tranquilizers used in working with other large mammals.

This option is comparing the tranquilizers used for rhinoceroses with the tranquilizers used for other large mammals. What the conclusion does, however, is compare collared female rhinoceroses with uncollared female rhinoceroses. Hence, whether you answer “very different” or “not different at all” to this question, in the end, it doesn’t matter.

(C) How often park rangers need to use tranquilizer darts to immobilize rhinoceroses for reasons other than attaching radio collars.

This answer choice can be evaluated in two ways:

• Very Often – Tranquilizers are used very often for uncollared females, too. In this case, can we still say that “tranquilizers inhibit fertility”? No! If they did, fertility in uncollared females would have been low, too.
• Rarely – This would strengthen our conclusion. If tranquilizers are not used on uncollared females, it is possible that something in these tranquilizers inhibits fertility.

(D) Whether male rhinoceroses in the wildlife park lose their collars any more often than the park’s female rhinoceroses do.

This answer choice is comparing the frequency of tranquilizers used on male rhinoceroses with the frequency of tranquilizers used on female rhinoceroses. What the conclusion actually does is compare collared female rhinoceroses with uncollared female rhinoceroses. Hence, whether you answer this question with “more frequently” or “not more frequently,” it doesn’t matter.

(E) Whether radio collars are the only practical means that park rangers have for tracking the movements of rhinoceroses in the park.

This option is comparing radio collars with other means of tracking. What the conclusion does is compare collared female rhinoceroses with uncollared female rhinoceroses. Hence, whether you answer this question with “there are other means” or “there are no other means,” again, it does not matter.

Note that only answer choice C affects the conclusion – if you answer the question it raises differently, it affects the conclusion differently. Option C would be good to know to evaluate the conclusion of the argument, therefore, the answer must be C.

Now try this question on your own:

Following several years of declining advertising sales, the Greenville Times reorganized its advertising sales force two years ago. Before the reorganization, the sales force was organized geographically, with some sales representatives concentrating on city-center businesses and others concentrating on different outlying regions. The reorganization attempted to increase the sales representatives’ knowledge of clients’ businesses by having each sales representative deal with only one type of industry or of retailing. After the reorganization, advertising sales increased.

In assessing whether the improvement in advertising sales can properly be attributed to the reorganization, it would be helpful to find out each of the following EXCEPT:

(A) Two years ago, what proportion of the Greenville Times’ total revenue was generated by advertising sales?
(B) Has the circulation of the Greenville Times increased substantially in the last two years?
(C) Has there been a substantial turnover in personnel in the advertising sales force over the last two years?
(D) Before the reorganization, had sales representatives found it difficult to keep up with relevant developments in all types of businesses to which they are assigned?
(E) Has the economy in Greenville and the surrounding regions been growing rapidly over the last two years?

We hope you will find this post useful to evaluate the “useful to evaluate” questions!

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 EpiPen Controversy Highlights An Allergic Reaction You May Have To GMAT Critical Reasoning

It is simply the American way to need a villain, and this week’s Enemy #1 is EpiPen owner Mylan, which is under fire for massive price increases to its EpiPen product, a life-saving necessity for those with acute allergies. The outcry is understandable: EpiPens have a short shelf life (at least based upon printed expiration date) and are a critical item for any family with a risk of life-threatening allergic reactions.

But perhaps only a pre-MBA blog could take the stance “but what is Mylan’s goal?” and expect the overwhelming-and-enthusiastic response “Maximize Shareholder Value! (woot!)” Regardless of your opinion on the EpiPen issue, you can take this opportunity to learn a valuable lesson for GMAT Critical Reasoning questions:

When a Critical Reasoning asks you to strengthen or weaken a plan or strategy, your attention MUST be directed to the specific goal being pursued.

Here’s where this can be dangerous on the GMAT. Consider a question that asked:

Consumer advocates and doctors alike have recently become outraged at the activities of pharmaceutical company Mylan. In an effort to leverage its patent to maximize shareholder value, Mylan has decided to increase the price of its signature EpiPen product sixfold over the last few years. The EpiPen is a product that administers a jolt of epinephrine, a chemical that can open airways and increase the flow of blood in someone suffering from a life-threatening allergic reaction.

Which of the following, if true, most constitutes a reason to believe that Mylan’s strategy will not accomplish the company’s goals?

(A) The goal of a society should be to protect human life regardless of expense or severity of undertaking.
(B) Allergic reactions are often fatal, particularly for young children, unless acted on quickly with the administration of epinephrine, a product that is currently patent-protected and owned solely by Mylan.
(C) Computer models predict that, at current EpiPen prices, most people will hold on to their EpiPens well past the expiration date, leading to their deaths and inability to purchase future EpiPens.

Your instincts as a decent, caring human being leave you very susceptible to choosing A or B. You care about people with allergies – heck, you or a close friend/relative might be one of them – and each of those answer choices provides a reason to join the outcry here and think, “Screw you, Mylan!”

But, importantly for your chances of becoming a profit-maximizing CEO via a high GMAT score, you must note this: neither directly weakens the likelihood of Mylan “leveraging its patent to maximize shareholder value,” and that is the express goal of this strategy. As stated in the argument, that is the only goal being pursued here, so your answer must focus directly on that goal. And as horrible as it is to think that this might be the thought process in a corporate boardroom, choice C is the only one that suggests that this strategy might lead to lesser profits (first they buy the product less often, then they can’t buy it ever again; fewer units sold could equal lower profit).

The lesson here? Beware “plan/strategy” answer choices that allow you to tangentially address the situation in the argument, particularly when you know that you’re likely to have an opinion of some sort on the topic matter itself. Instead, completely digest the specifics of the stated goal, and make sure that the answer you choose is directly targeted at the objective. Way too often on these problems, students insert themselves in the larger topic and lose sight of the specific goal, falling victim to the readily available trap answers.

So give your GMAT score a much-needed shot of Critical Reasoning epinephrine – focus on the specifics of the plan, and save your tangential angst for the social media where it belongs.

By Brian Galvin.

# GMAT Tip of the Week: Making Your GMAT Score SupeRIOr to Ryan Lochte’s

What’s the worst thing that can happen on your GMAT exam? Is it running out of time well before you’re done? Or blanking on nearly every math formula you’ve studied?

Whatever it is, it can’t be nearly as bad as being pulled over by fake cops – no lights or nothing, just a badge – then being told to get on the ground and having a gun placed on your forehead and being like, “whatever.” So your big event of 2016 will already go a lot better than Ryan Lochte’s did; you have that going for you.

What else do you have going for you on the GMAT? The ability to learn from the most recent few days of Lochte’s life. Lochte’s biggest mistake wasn’t vandalizing a gas station bathroom at 4am, but rather making up his own story and creating an even larger mess. And that’s a huge lesson that you need to keep in mind for the GMAT:

Don’t make up your own story.

Here’s what that means, on three major question types:

DATA SUFFICIENCY
People make up their own story on Data Sufficiency all the time. And like a prevailing theory about Lochte (he didn’t connect the vandalism of the bathroom to the men coming after him for restitution; he really did think that he had been robbed for no reason), it’s not that they’re intentionally lying. They’re just “conveniently” misremembering what they’ve read or connecting dots that weren’t actually connected in real life. Consider the question:

The product of consecutive integers a, b, c, and d is 5040. What is the value of integer d?

(1) d is prime
(2) d < c < b < a

Once people have factored 5040 into 7*8*9*10, they can then quickly recognize that Statement 1 is sufficient: the only prime number in that bunch is 7, so d must be 7. But then when it comes to Statement 2, they’ve often made up their own story. By saying “d is the smallest, and, yep, that’s 7!” they’re making up the fact that these consecutive integers are positive. That was not specifically stated! So it could be 7, 8, 9, and 10 or it could be -7, -8, -9, and -10, making d either -10 or 7. And the GMAT (maybe like an NBC interviewer?) makes it easy for you to make up your own story.

With Statement 1, prime numbers must be positive, so if you weren’t already thinking only about positives, the question format nudges you further in that direction. The answer is A when people often mistakenly choose D, and the reason is that the question makes it easy for you to make up your own story when looking at Statement 2. So before you submit an answer, always ask yourself, “Am I only using the facts explicitly provided to me, or am I somehow making up my own story?”

CRITICAL REASONING
Think of your friends who are good storytellers. We hate to break it to you, but they’re probably making at least 10-20% of those stories up. Which makes sense. “It was a pretty big fish,” is a lot less compelling than, “It was the biggest fish any of us had ever seen!” Case in point, the Olympics themselves.

No commentator this week has said that Michael Phelps, Lochte’s teammate, is “a really good swimmer.” They’re posing, “Is he the greatest athlete of all time?” because words that end in -st capture attention (and pageviews). Even Lochte was guilty of going overly-specific for dramatic effect: there was, indeed, a gun pointed at his taxi, but not resting on his forehead. His version just makes the story more exciting and dramatic…and you may very well be guilty of such a mistake on the GMAT. Consider:

About two million years ago, lava dammed up a river in western Asia and caused a small lake to form. The lake existed for about half a million years. Bones of an early human ancestor were recently found in the ancient lake bottom sediments on top of the layer of lava. Therefore, ancestors of modern humans lived in Western Asia between 2 million and 1.5 million years ago.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

(A) There were not other lakes in the immediate area before the lava dammed up the river.
(B) The lake contained fish that the human ancestors could have used for food.
(C) The lava under the lake-bottom sediments did not contain any human fossil remains.
(D) The lake was deep enough that a person could drown in it.
(E) The bones were already in the sediments by the time the lake disappeared.

The correct answer here is E (if the bones were not already there, then they’re not good evidence that people were there during that time), but the popular trap answer is C. Consider what would happen if C were untrue: that means that there were human fossil remains that pre-date the time period in question.

But here’s where Lochte Logic is dangerous: you’re not trying to prove that the FIRST humans lived in this period at this time; you’re just trying to prove that humans lived here during that time. And whether or not there were fossils from 2.5 million or 4 million years ago doesn’t change that you still have this evidence of people in that 2 million-1.5 million years ago timeframe.

When people choose C, it’s almost always because they made up their own story about the argument – they read it as, “The earliest human ancestors lived in this place and time,” and that’s just not what’s given. Why do they do that? For Lochte’s very own reasons: it makes the story a little more interesting and a little more favorable.

After all, the average pre-MBA doesn’t spend much time reading about archaeology, but if some discovery is that level of exciting (We’ve discovered the first human! We’ve discovered evidence of aliens!) then it crosses your Facebook/Twitter feeds. You’re used to reading stories about the first/fastest/greatest/last, and so when you get dry subject matter your mind has a tendency to put those words in there subconsciously. Be careful – do not make up your own story about the conclusion!

A similar phenomenon occurs with Reading Comprehension. When you read a long passage, your mind tends to connect dots that aren’t there as it fills in the rest of the story for you. Just like Lochte, who had to fill in the gap of, “Hey what would I have said if someone pointed a gun at me and told me to get on the ground? Oh right…’whatever’ is my default answer for most things,” your mind will start to fill in details that make logical sense.

The problem then comes when you’re asked an Inference question, for which the correct answer must be true based on the passage. For example, if two details in a passage are:

1. Michael swam the fastest race of his life.
2. Ryan’s race was one of the slowest he’s ever swam.

You might answer the question, “Which of the following is a conclusion that can be drawn from the passage?” with:

(A) Michael swam faster than Ryan.

Your mind – particularly amidst a lot of other text between those two facts – wants to logically arrange those two swims together, and with “fastest” for Michael and “slowest” for Ryan, it kind of seems logical that Michael was faster. But those two races are never compared directly to each other. Consider that if Michael and Ryan aren’t Phelps and Lochte, but rather filmmaker Michael Moore and Olympic champion Ryan Lochte, then of course Lochte’s slowest swim would still be way, way faster than Moore’s fastest.

Importantly, Reading Comprehension questions love to bait unwitting test-takers with comparisons as answer choices, knowing that your mind is primed to create your own story and draw comparisons that are probably true, but just not proven. So again, any time you’re faced with an answer that seems obvious, go back and ask yourself if the details you’re using were provided to you, or if instead, you’re making up your own story.

So learn a valuable lesson from Ryan Lochte and avoid making up your own story, sticking only to the clean facts of the matter. Stay true to the truth, and you’ll walk out of the test center saying “Jeah!”

By Brian Galvin.

# How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score

In order to get into business school, applicants have to fulfill a number of requirements. One of those requirements is to submit a GMAT score. Perhaps you’ve taken the GMAT and you’re dissatisfied with the score you received on the Verbal section of the test. Naturally, you want to do everything possible to achieve your best score on every section of the test. Check out some tips on how to improve GMAT Verbal score results and impress admissions officials:

Complete a Timed Practice Test for the Verbal Section
People who want to learn how to improve Verbal GMAT scores can benefit from taking practice tests. You’re given 75 minutes to complete 41 questions in the Verbal section. This seems like a long time, but the minutes can disappear quickly if you spend too much time on one question.

Perhaps you missed some questions while rushing to finish on time. A timed practice test can help you to get into the habit of answering each question within a certain number of minutes. Once you establish a test-taking rhythm for the verbal section, you can focus on each question instead of worrying about the clock. At Veritas Prep, you can practice for the GMAT by taking our free test. We provide you with a performance analysis and score report that can help you determine which skills need the most improvement.

Think Like a Professional in the Business World
It can be helpful to examine your approach to the questions in the Verbal section. Someone who takes the GMAT is on a path to earning an MBA and working in the business world. Successful business people know how to evaluate a problem as well as possible options to find the most effective solution. They also know how to disregard information that doesn’t serve any purpose in the problem-solving process. Having the mindset of a business professional can help you successfully answer each question in the Verbal section. Our online and in-person prep courses teach students a new way to approach questions so they can improve GMAT Verbal scores.

Some test-takers look at the Reading Comprehension questions in the Verbal section and decide to save time by skimming through the passages. When you do this, it’s difficult to get an understanding of what the author of the passage is trying to convey. Furthermore, many Reading Comprehension questions relate to the main idea, tone, and structure of a passage. Consequently, it’s worth putting aside time to thoroughly read each passage so you can get a clear picture of what the author is trying to convey. Students who work with a Veritas Prep tutor learn what to look for and what to disregard when reading passages in this section.

Look for the Logic in Critical Reasoning Questions
Those who want to know how to improve GMAT Verbal score results may want to focus some attention on their Critical Reasoning skills. Looking for logic is the key to arriving at the correct answers to these questions.

At first glance, many of the answer options can seem like the correct choice. Some of the answer choices may even contain words that are in the passage. But the presence of those words doesn’t necessarily mean that an option is correct. Look for an answer option that follows the same line of logic as the passage itself. It is also helpful to rule out answer options that definitely do not follow along with the argument in the passage. Careful evaluation of each answer option can help to improve GMAT verbal scores.

Dedicate More Time to Outside Reading

Many prospective MBA students who want to know how to improve verbal GMAT scores turn to theat Veritas Prep. Why? Because we hire instructors who scored in the 99th percentile on the test. Students learn how to raise their scores from tutors who have hands-on experience with this challenging exam. Contact our offices at Veritas Prep today and let us guide you to your best performance on the GMAT.

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

# Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Attacking Gerunds on the GMAT!

A few weeks back, we talked about participles and how they are used on the GMAT. In that post, we had promised to discuss gerunds more in depth at another time. So today, as promised, we’ll be looking at gerunds. Before we do that, however, let’s examine Verbals.

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

There are three types of verbals:

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

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

Running a marathon is very difficult. – Subject
I love swimming. – Direct object
The activity I enjoy the most is swimming. – Subject complement
She thanked me for helping her. – Object of a preposition

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

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

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

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

(A) had elected early retirement rather than face
(C) have elected retiring early instead of facing
(D) have elected to retire early rather than facing
(E) have elected to retire early rather than face

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

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

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

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

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

Take a look at one more:

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

(A) trying to metabolize, or render harmless, the chemical that is irritating it
(B) trying that it metabolize, or render harmless, the chemical irritant
(C) attempt to try to metabolize, or render harmless, such a chemical irritant
(D) attempt to try and metabolize, or render harmless, the chemical irritating it
(E) attempt to metabolize, or render harmless, the chemical irritant

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

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

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

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 Overly Specific Question Stem

For most of our lives, we ask and answer relatively generic questions: “How’s it going?” “What are you up to this weekend?” “What time do the Cubs play tonight?”

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

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

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

Raisins are made by drying grapes in the sun. Although some of the sugar in the grapes is caramelized in the process, nothing is added.
Moreover, the only thing removed from the grapes is the water that evaporates during the drying, and water contains no calories or nutrients.
The fact that raisins contain more iron per food calorie than grapes do is thus puzzling.

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

(A) Since grapes are bigger than raisins, it takes several bunches of grapes to provide the same amount of iron as a handful of raisins does.
(B) Caramelized sugar cannot be digested, so its calories do not count toward the food calorie content of raisins.
(C) The body can absorb iron and other nutrients more quickly from grapes than from raisins because of the relatively high water content of grapes.
(D) Raisins, but not grapes, are available year-round, so many people get a greater share of their yearly iron intake from raisins than from grapes.
(E) Raisins are often eaten in combination with other iron-containing foods, while grapes are usually eaten by themselves.

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

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

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

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

(1) xy = 10
(2) x = 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Brian Galvin.

# Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Using Prepositional Phrases on the GMAT

In previous posts, we have already discussed participles as well as absolute phrases. Today, let’s take a look at another type of modifier – the prepositional phrase.

A prepositional phrase will begin with a preposition and end with a noun, pronoun, gerund, or clause – the “object” of the preposition. The object of the preposition might have one or more modifiers to describe it.

Here are some examples of prepositional phrases (with prepositions underlined):

• along the ten mile highway…
• with a cozy blanket…
• without worrying…

For example:

• The book under the table belongs to my mom. Here, the prepositional phrase acts as an adjective and tells us “which one” of the books belongs to my mom.
• We tried the double cheeseburger at the new burger joint. Here, the prepositional phrase acts as an adverb and tells us “where” we tried the cheeseburger.

Like other modifiers, a prepositional modifier should be placed as close as possible to the thing it is modifying.

Let’s take a look at a couple of official GMAT questions to see how understanding prepositional phrases can help us on this exam:

The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.

(A) The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
(B) To the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two letters, being the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
(C) The only eyewitness account is in two letters by the nephew of Pliny the Elder writing to the historian Tacitus an account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.
(D) Writing the only eyewitness account, Pliny the Elder’s nephew accounted for the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
(E) In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.

There are multiple prepositional phrases here:

• of the great eruption of Vesuvius (answers “Which eruption?”)
• in two letters (tells us “where” he wrote his account)
• to the historian Tacitus (answers “Which letters?”)

Therefore, the phrase “to the historian Tacitus” should be close to what it is describing, “letters,” which makes answer choices B and C incorrect.

Also, “in two letters to the historian Tacitus” should modify the verb “wrote.” In options A and D, “in two letters to the historian Tacitus” seems to be modifying “eruption,” which is incorrect. (There are other errors in answer choices B, C and D as well, but we will stick to the topic at hand.)

Option E corrects the prepositional phrase errors by putting the modifier close to the verb “wrote,” so therefore, E is our answer.

Let’s try one more:

Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested, but in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.

(A) in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy
(B) if criminal or delinquent behavior is attributed to an allergy to some food
(C) in attributing behavior that is criminal or delinquent to an allergy to some food
(D) if some food allergy is attributed as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior
(E) in attributing a food allergy as the cause of criminal or delinquent behavior

This sentence has two clauses:

Clause 1: Defense attorneys have occasionally argued that their clients’ misconduct stemmed from a reaction to something ingested,

Clause 2: in attributing criminal or delinquent behavior to some food allergy, the perpetrators are in effect told that they are not responsible for their actions.

These two clauses are joined by the conjunction “but,” and the underlined part is a prepositional phrase in the second clause.

Answer choices A, C and E imply that the perpetrators are attributing their own behaviors to food allergies. That is not correct – their defense attorneys are attributing their behavior to food allergies, and hence, all three of these options have modifier errors.

This leaves us with B and D. Answer choice D uses the phrase “attributed as,” which is grammatically incorrect – the correct usage should be “X is attributed to Y,” rather than “X attributed as Y.” Therefore, option B is our answer.

As you can see, the proper placement of prepositional phrases is instrumental in creating a sentence with a clear, logical meaning.  Since that type of clear, logical meaning is a primary emphasis of correct Sentence Correction answers, you should be prepared to look for prepositional phrases (here we go…) *on the GMAT*.

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: Some GMAT Questions Using the “Like” vs. “As” Concept

Today we will look at some official GMAT questions testing the “like” vs. “as” concept we discussed last week.

(Review last week’s post – if you haven’t read it already – before you read this one for greater insight on this concept.)

Take a look at the following GMAT Sentence Correction question:

As with those of humans, the DNA of grape plants contains sites where certain unique sequences of nucleotides are repeated over and over.

(A) As with those of humans, the DNA of grape plants contains sites where
(B) As human DNA, the DNA of grape plants contain sites in which
(C) As it is with human DNA, the DNA of grape plants, containing sites in which
(D) Like human, the DNA of grape plants contain sites where
(E) Like human DNA, the DNA of grape plants contains sites in which

Should we use “as” or “like”? Well, what are we comparing? We’re comparing the DNA of humans to the DNA of grape plants. Answer choice E compares these two properly – “Like human DNA, the DNA of grape plants…” DNA is singular, so it uses the singular verb “contains”.

All other options are incorrect. Answer choice A uses “those of” for DNA, but DNA is singular, so this cannot be right. B uses “as” to compare the two nouns, which is also incorrect. C is a sentence fragment without a main verb. And D compares “human” to “DNA”, which is not the “apples-to-apples” comparison we need to make this sentence correct. Therefore, our answer must be E.

Let’s try another one:

Like Auden, the language of James Merrill is chatty, arch, and conversational — given to complex syntactic flights as well as to prosaic free-verse strolls.

(A) Like Auden, the language of James Merrill
(B) Like Auden, James Merrill’s language
(C) Like Auden’s, James Merrill’s language
(D) As with Auden, James Merrill’s language
(E) As is Auden’s the language of James Merrill

Here, we’re comparing Auden’s language to James Merrill’s language. Answer choice C correctly uses the possessive “Auden’s” to show that language is implied. “Like Auden’s language, James Merrill’s language …” contains both parallel structure and a correct comparison.

Answer choices A, B and D incorrectly compare “Auden” to “language,” rather than “Auden’s language” to “language,” so those options are out. The structure of answer choice E is not parallel – “Auden’s” vs. “the language of James Merrill”. Therefore, the answer must be C.

Let’s try something more difficult:

More than thirty years ago Dr. Barbara McClintock, the Nobel Prize winner, reported that genes can “jump,” as pearls moving mysteriously from one necklace to another.

(A) as pearls moving mysteriously from one necklace to another
(B) like pearls moving mysteriously from one necklace to another
(C) as pearls do that move mysteriously from one necklace to others
(D) like pearls do that move mysteriously from one necklace to others
(E) as do pearls that move mysteriously from one necklace to some other one

This is a tricky question – it’s perfect for us to re-iterate how important it is to focus on the meaning of the given sentence. Do not try to follow grammar rules blindly on the GMAT!

Is the comparison between “genes jumping” and “pearls moving”? Do pearls really move mysteriously from one necklace to another? No! This is a hypothetical situation, so we must use “like” – genes are like pearls. Answer choices B and D are the only ones that use “like,” so we can eliminate our other options. D uses a clause with “like,” which is incorrect. In answer choice B, “moving from …” is a modifier – “moving” doesn’t act as a verb here, so it doesn’t need a clause. Hence, answer choice B is correct.

Here’s another one:

According to a recent poll, owning and living in a freestanding house on its own land is still a goal of a majority of young adults, like that of earlier generations.

(A) like that of earlier generations
(B) as that for earlier generations
(C) just as earlier generations did
(D) as have earlier generations
(E) as it was of earlier generations

Note the parallel structure of the comparison in answer choice E – “Owning … a house… is still a goal of young adults, as it was of earlier generations.” It correctly uses “as” with a clause.

Answer choice A uses “that” but its antecedent is not very clear; there are other nouns between “goal” and “like,” and hence, confusion arises. None of the other answer choices give us a clear, parallel comparison, so our answer is E.

Alright, last one:

In Hungary, as in much of Eastern Europe, an overwhelming proportion of women work, many of which are in middle management and light industry.

(A) as in much of Eastern Europe, an overwhelming proportion of women work, many of which are in
(B) as with much of Eastern Europe, an overwhelming proportion of women works, many in
(C) as in much of Eastern Europe, an overwhelming proportion of women work, many of them in.
(D) like much of Eastern Europe, an overwhelming proportion of women works, and many are.
(E) like much of Eastern Europe, an overwhelming proportion of women work, many are in.

Another tricky question. The comparison here is between “what happens in Hungary” and “what happens in much of Eastern Europe,” not between “Hungary” and “much of Eastern Europe.” A different sentence structure would be required to compare “Hungary” to “much of Eastern Europe” such as “Hungary, like much of Eastern Europe, has an overwhelming …”

With prepositional phrases, as with clauses, “as” is used. So, we have two relevant options – A and C. Answer choice A uses “which” for “women,” and hence, is incorrect. Therefore, our answer is C.

Here are some takeaways to keep in mind:

• You should be comparing “apples” to “apples”.
• Parallel structure is important.
• Use “as” with prepositional phrases.

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: Using “Like” vs. “As” on the GMAT Verbal Section

If you have seen the Veritas Prep curriculum, then you know we frequently highlight the strategy of “Think like the Testmaker” to answer GMAT questions. Recently, we had a student question the grammatical validity of this construct – this brought the “like” vs. “as” debate to mind, so we decided to tackle it this week.

When should you use “like” and when should you use “as” in a sentence?

Both words can be used in comparisons, however the structure of the sentence will be different in the two cases. This is because traditionally, “like” is a preposition and “as” is a conjunction – a preposition takes the form of an object while a conjunction takes the form of a clause. Therefore:

Using “like,” we compare nouns/pronouns (including gerunds). Usually, a single verb will be used.

Using “as,” we compare actual actions. There will be two verbs used when we compare using “as.”

So, this is how we are going to compare “like” and “as”:

• He runs like a madman. – A single verb, “runs.”
• He runs as a madman does. – Two verbs, “runs” and “does” (which is equivalent to “does run”).

In the same way, both of the following sentences are correct:

• Think like the Testmaker.
• Think as the Testmaker does.

But beware – “as” used with a noun or pronoun alone does not mean that this usage is incorrect. “As” can also be used to show a role or capacity. For example, in the sentence, “She works as a consultant,” the word “as” means that she works in the capacity of a consultant. There is no comparison here, but the sentence is still grammatically correct.

Also, we usually use “like” in the case of hypothetical comparisons. Take, for instance, the sentence, “She screams like a banshee.” Here, it would be odd to say, “She screams as a banshee does,” because we don’t really know how a banshee screams.

Let’s look at a few GMAT Sentence Correction questions now:

Like many self-taught artists, Perle Hessing did not begin to paint until she was well into middle age.

(A) Like
(B) As have
(C) Just as with
(D) Just like
(E) As did

In this sentence, the word “like” is correctly comparing “Perle Hessing” to “many self taught artists.” There is no clause after “like” and we are using a single verb. Hence, the use of “like” is correct and our answer is A.

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

Based on recent box office receipts, the public’s appetite for documentary films, like nonfiction books, seems to be on the rise.

(A) like nonfiction books
(B) as nonfiction books
(C) as its interest in nonfiction books
(D) like their interest in nonfiction books
(E) like its interest in nonfiction books

This sentence also has a comparison, and it is between “appetite” and “interest” and how they are both are on a rise. Answer choice E compares “appetite” to “interest” using “like” as a single verb. None of the answer choices have “as” with a clause so the answer must be E.

These were two simple examples of “like” vs. “as.” Now let’s look at a higher-level GMAT question:

During an ice age, the buildup of ice at the poles and the drop in water levels near the equator speed up the Earth’s rotation, like a spinning figure skater whose speed increases when her arms are drawn in

(A) like a spinning figure skater whose speed increases when her arms are drawn in
(B) like the increased speed of a figure skater when her arms are drawn in
(C) like a figure skater who increases speed while spinning with her arms drawn in
(D) just as a spinning figure skater who increases speed by drawing in her arms
(E) just as a spinning figure skater increases speed by drawing in her arms

There is a comparison here, but between which two things? Answer choice A seems to be comparing “Earth’s rotation” to “spinning figure skater,” but these two things are not comparable. Option E is the correct choice here – it compares “speed up Earth’s rotation” to “skater increases speed.” Therefore, our answer is E.

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 Use Pronoun Substitution to Answer GMAT Sentence Correction Questions

It was around the time my daughter was born that my wife and I began to have pronoun fights. A certain amount of ambiguity is hard-wired into all language, so when you combine the complexity of English with a healthy dose of sleep deprivation, commands like “put it over there,” become intolerable. What is “it?” Where is “there?” (And why are we fighting over pronoun ambiguity when there’s a screaming child we’re not attending to?)

Lest you fear for the stability of our marriage, rest assured, dear reader, these fights were not hard to resolve – all we had to do was substitute the noun we intended the pronoun to refer to, and suddenly the intolerably vague directive became an unmistakable clear request. There’s a lesson here for the GMAT.

Because pronouns are so common, there’s no avoiding their usage on Sentence Correction questions, and the best way to avoid getting thrown off by them is to substitute in whatever noun or noun phrase these pronouns appear to be referring to. This has two benefits: first, we’ll be better able to assess whether the pronoun is used correctly, should it appear in the underlined portion of the sentence. And secondly, it will help us to understand the meaning of the sentence so that we can properly evaluate whether whatever we choose is, in fact, logical.

Take the following question, for example:

According to public health officials, in 1998 Massachusetts became the first state in which more babies were born to women over the age of thirty than under it.

(A) than
(B) than born
(C) than they were

Notice that this sentence ends with the pronoun “it.” Because the “it” is not part of the underlined portion of the sentence, test-takers will often pay the word scant attention. This is certainly true of many students who have brought this sentence to my attention. Pretty much all of them selected B as the correct answer and were astonished to learn they were wrong.

So, let’s look at the relevant clause with answer choice B: more babies were born to women over the age of thirty than born under it. This sounded fine to the students’ ears. When I asked them what “it” referred to, however, they quickly recognized that “it” refers to the preceding noun phrase “the age of thirty.” I then asked them to reread the clause, but this time, to substitute the referent in place of the pronoun. The phrase read as follows: more babies were born to women over the age of thirty than born under [the age of thirty.]

The problem was immediately apparent. This clause compares babies born to women over the age of thirty to babies born under the age of thirty! Hopefully, it goes without saying that the writer did not intend to persuade the reader that some population of babies were under the age of 30 when they were born.

Clearly, B is incorrect. Once we substitute the referent for the pronoun, we can quickly see that only answer choice, A, makes any logical sense: more babies were born to women over the age of thirty than under the [age of thirty.]  We’re simply comparing the number of babies born to women in two different age groups. Not only is A the shortest and cleanest answer choice, it’s also the most coherent option. So, we have our answer.

Let’s try another one:

In 1979 lack of rain reduced India’s rice production to about 41 million tons, nearly 25 percent less than those of the 1978 harvest

(A) less than those of the 1978 harvest
(B) less than the 1978 harvest
(C) less than 1978
(D) fewer than 1978
(E) fewer than that of India’s 1978 harvest

Notice the “those” in the underlined portion. What is “those” referring to? It must be referring to some plural antecedent, so our only real option is “tons.” Let’s take a look at the sentence with “tons” in place of “those.”

In 1979 lack of rain reduced India’s rice production to about 41 million tons, nearly 25 percent less than [the tons] of the 1978 harvest.

Do we want to compare the rice production in 1979 to the “tons” in 1978? Of course not. We want to compare one year’s production to another year’s production, or one harvest to another.

C and D both compare one year’s production to a year, rather than to the production of another year, so those are both wrong.

E gives us another pronoun – this time we have “that,” which must have a singular antecedent. It seems to refer to “rice production,” so let’s make that substitution.

In 1979 lack of rain reduced India’s rice production to about 41 million tons, nearly 25 percent fewer than [the rice production] of India’s 1978 harvest.

Well, this makes no sense – we use “fewer” to compare countable items, so we certainly wouldn’t say that one year’s production is “fewer” than another year’s production. So, E is also out.

This leaves us with answer choice B, which logically compares one year’s harvest to another year’s harvest.

Takeaway: Anytime you see a pronoun in a Sentence Correction sentence, always substitute the referent in place of the pronoun. This practice will clarify the meaning of the sentence and prevent the kind of ambiguity that leads to both incorrect answers and marital discord.

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

# Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Are Official Answers Debatable on the GMAT?

Let’s begin with the bottom line: no, they are not. If you are thinking along the lines of, “This official answer cannot be correct! How can the answer be A? It must be C, or C is at least just as valid as A,” then you are wasting your time. The answer given is never debatable. What you should be thinking instead is, “The answer given is A, but  I thought it was C. I must find out where I made a mistake.”

The point is that since you are going to take GMAT, you must learn to think like the GMAT testmakers. The answers they give for these questions are the correct answers, so need to accept that – this way, the next step of figuring out the gap in your understanding will be far easier. Today, let’s take a look at an official question that is often debated:

The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a drop in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
(B) Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.
(C) The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.
(D) The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.
(E) The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years.

First, let’s look at the premises of the argument:

• The hourly wage of assemblers in Vernland is much lower than that in Borodia.
• 3 years ago, Borodia dropped all tariffs on TVs imported from Vernland.
• The number of TVs sold annually in Borodia is same.
• However, the number of assemblers in Borodia has decreased.

The conclusion is that the trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.

This conclusion might look logical, but it is full of assumptions.

Why does this conclusion seem so logical? Wages in Vernland are lower, so it would seem like TVs should be cheaper here. Borodia dropped all tariffs on imported TVs, which means there will be no artificial inflation of Vernland TV prices. Finally, the number of TVs sold in Borodia has not dropped, but number of assemblers in Borodia has dropped, which makes it look like fewer TVs are getting made in Borodia.

An onlooker might conclude that Borodia is importing more TVs from Vernland because they are cheaper, but here are some assumptions that come to mind:

• The cost of a TV in Vernland is lower because assembler’s wage is lower. What if the raw material cost is higher in Vernland? Or other costs are higher? The cost to produce a Vernland TV could actually be higher than the cost to produce a Borodia TV.
• Fewer TVs are getting made in Borodia, but that does not mean that Borodian assemblers have not become more productive. What if fewer assemblers are needed because they can actually complete the assembly process much faster? The number of TVs sold is the same, however, if each assembler is doing more work, fewer assemblers will be needed. In this case, the number of TVs made in Borodia might not have changed even though the number of producers dropped.

Coming to our question now: Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

We are looking for an assumption, i.e. a NECESSARY premise. We have already identified some assumptions, so let’s see if any of the answer choices gives us one of those:

(A) The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.

This is the most popular incorrect answer choice. Test takers keep trying to justify why it makes perfect sense, but actually, it is not required for the conclusion to hold true.

The logic of test takers that pick this answer choice is often on the lines of, “If the number of workers from Borodia decreased, in order for Borodia to show an increased number of imports from Vernland, Vernland must have increased their number of workers by at least as much as the number of workers that left Borodia.”

Note that although this may sound logical, it is not necessary to the argument. There are lots of possible situations where this may not be the case:

Perhaps number of TVs being manufactured in Vernland is the same and, hence, the number of assemblers is the same, too. It is possible that out of the fixed number of TVs manufactured, fewer are getting locally bought and more are getting exported to Borodia. So, it is not necessarily true that number of TV assemblers in Vernland has increased.

(B) Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.

This is also not required for the conclusion to hold – the TVs could actually be exactly the same, but the TVs assembled in Vernland could still be cheaper than the TVs assembled in Borodia due to a potentially lower cost of assembly in Vernland.

(C) The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.

This is one of the assumptions we discussed above – we are assuming that the reduction in the number of assemblers must not be due to an increase in the productivity of the assemblers because if the assemblers have got more productive, then the number of TVs produced could be the same and, hence, the number of TVs imported would not have increased.

(D) The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.

This is not required for the conclusion to hold. Perhaps the number of TVs being sold in Vernland has actually reduced while more are getting exported to Borodia, so the overall number of TVs being made is the same.

(E) The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years.

This is also not required for the conclusion to hold. What happens to the hourly wages of assemblers in Vernland and Borodia in the future doesn’t concern this argument – we are only concerned about what has been happening in the last 3 years.

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!

# Help! 100% of the GMAT Sentence Correction Question is Underlined!

Imagine, you are plugging along in your Verbal Section on the GMAT, and then it pops up – the dreaded Sentence Correction question where every single word is underlined. The golden strategy for Sentence Correction is typically to evaluate decision points, as in determining what two or three spots in the sentence are evaluated in the answer choices. Consider a question where not all of the sentence is underlined:

A recent research study of worldwide cellular penetration finds that there are now one mobile phone for every two people, more than twice as many than there were in 2005.

(A) there are now one mobile phone for every two people, more than twice as many than there were
(B) there is now one mobile phone for every two people, more than twice as many than there were
(C) there is now one mobile phone for every two people, more than twice as many as there were
(D) every two people now have one mobile phone, more than twice as many than there were
(E) every two people now has one mobile phone, more than twice as many as there were

The first step we take is to cut away the junk, getting to the core of the Sentence Correction question – by ignoring “of worldwide cellular penetration,” we uncover that the subject of the sentence, “a study finds that,” makes it clear with the usage of “that” that the second portion of the sentence it set up to be a new clause with its own subject/verb relationship. This is the first decision point.

We should also know that there “is,” not “are,” one phone, which definitely puts answer choice A out of the running. Another decision point is our comparison phrase – it should be “twice as many as,” not “twice as many than,” which eliminates options B and D. Quickly, with these decision points, we are down to two remaining answers. E seems to inference that two people share one mobile phone (seems a little tough logistically, right?) aka, an illogical structure to the sentence. That leaves us with the correct answer, C.

Easy enough, right? But what do we do if everything is, indeed, underlined?

Our strategy is not going to be all that different, but instead, we will need to focus more on decision points from the answer choices and then use process of elimination when it is not entirely apparent what needs adjusting within the question sentence itself. Take a similar example (but one that is completely underlined):

Unlike cellular phones and personal computers, there is a difficulty on the part of many people to adapt to other modern technologies.

(A) Unlike cellular phones and personal computers, there is a difficulty on the part of many people to adapt to other modern technologies.
(B) Unlike cellular phones and personal computers, which many people are comfortable using, they have difficulty adapting to other modern technologies.
(C) Unlike cellular phones and personal computers, other modern technologies bring out a difficulty for many people to adapt to them.
(D) Many people, though comfortable using cellular phones and personal computers, have difficulty adapting to other modern technologies.
(E) Many people have a difficulty in adapting to other modern technologies, while they are comfortable using cellular phones and personal computers.

Looking at our answer choices, a clear decision point is “unlike” versus “many.” “Unlike” ends up comparing people to cellular phones and personal computers, and while Apple’s Siri can be pretty wise, there are (at least, for now) huge differences between people and those technologies. “Unlike” doesn’t work, and now we’ve have quickly narrowed it down to two answer choices: D and E. “Difficulty in adapting” gives us another decision choice in option E, leaving us with D as the correct answer.

When coming across completely underlined Sentence Correction questions, the first course of action is to not freak out. Stick with the strategy, and the correct answer will come easier than you think.

By Ashley Triscuit, a Veritas Prep GMAT instructor based in Boston.

# GMAT Tip of the Week: Death, Taxes, and the GMAT Items You Know For Certain

Here on April 15, it’s a good occasion to remember the Benjamin Franklin quote: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” Franklin, of course, never took the GMAT (which didn’t become a thing until a little ways after his own death, which he accurately predicted above). But if he did, he’d have plenty to add to that quote.

On the GMAT, several things are certain. Here’s a list of items you will certainly see on the GMAT, as you attempt to raise your score and therefore your potential income, thereby raising your future tax bills in Franklin’s honor:

Integrated Reasoning
You will struggle with pacing on the Integrated Reasoning section. 12 prompts in 30 minutes (with multiple problems per prompt) is an extremely aggressive pace and very few people finish comfortably. Be willing to guess on a problem that you know could sap your time: not only will that help you finish the section and protect your score, it will also help save your stamina and energy for the all-important Quant Section to follow.

Word Problems
On the Quantitative Section, you will certainly see at least one Work/Rate problem, one Weighted Average problem, and one Min/Max problem. This is good news! Word problems reward repetition and preparation – if you’ve put in the work, there should be no surprises.

Level of Difficulty
If you’re scoring above average on either the Quant or Verbal sections, you will see at least one problem markedly below your ability level. Because each section contains several unscored, experimental problems, and those problems are delivered randomly, probability dictates that every 700+ scorer will see at least one problem designed for the 200-500 crowd (and probably more than that). Do not try to read in to your performance based on the difficulty level of any one problem! It’s easy to fear that such a problem was delivered to you because you’re struggling, but the much more logical explanation is that it was either random or difficult-but-sneakily-so, so stay confident and move on.

Data Sufficiency
You will see at least one Data Sufficiency problem that seems way too easy to be true. And it’s probably not true: make sure that you think critically any time the testmaker is directly baiting you into a particular answer.

Sentence Correction
You will have to pick an answer that you don’t like, that doesn’t catch the ear the way you’d write or say it. Make sure that you prioritize the major errors that you know you can routinely catch and correct, and not let the GMAT bait you into a decision you’re just not qualified to make.

You will see a passage that takes you a few re-reads to even get your mind to process it. Remember to be– get enough out of the passage to know where to look when they ask you a specific question, but don’t worry about becoming a subject-matter expert on the topic. GMAT passages are designed to be difficult to read (particularly toward the end of a long test), so know that your competitive advantage is that you’ll be more efficient than your competition.

Critical Reasoning
You will have the opportunity to make quick work of several Critical Reasoning problems if you notice the tiny that each argument provides, and if you’re able to notice the subtle-but-significant words that make conclusions extra specific (and therefore harder to prove).

Few things are certain in life, but as you approach the GMAT there are plenty of certainties that you can prepare for so that you eliminate surprises and proceed throughout your test day confidently. On this Tax Day, take inventory of the things you know to be certain about the GMAT so that your test day isn’t so taxing.

By Brian Galvin.

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

We 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
(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.

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!

# Are There Set Rules for Answering GMAT Sentence Correction Questions?

The 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.

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

# GMAT Tip of the Week: Verbal Is About The Beat, Not The Lyrics

On our final Friday of Hip Hop Month here in the “GMAT Tip of the Week” space, let’s take a moment to appreciate the unsung (or at least non-singing) heroes of hip hop. Did you like Snoop and Tupac in the early 90s, or Eminem in the late 90s? They spit the rhymes, but what you likely enjoy most through your Beats By Dre are Dr. Dre’s classic beats.

A fan of Jay-Z and Cam’ron in the early 2000s? There’s no H to the Izzo or Heart of the City without Kanye West’s beats behind them. More recently, Kane Beatz and DJ Khaled have been the masterminds behind those bangers that you know as Drake, Lil’ Wayne, or Nicki Minaj hits.

So, ok The Game without Kanye behind him, and 50 Cent would be in da club cleaning the bathrooms without that classic beat by Dre. But what does this have to do with your GMAT score?

One of the biggest mistakes you can make as a GMAT examinee is to see the question for its subject matter (“it’s about crime rates” or “it’s about antihistamines”) and not for its structure (“it’s a wordplay difference” or “that’s classic generalization”). The subject matter is the lyrics that tend to get the glory, but the standardized-format structure is the beat. Even though you may find the lyrics “Go Shorty, it’s your birthday…” in your head, that’s not at all what you like about that song. It’s the epic beat. The same is true for GMAT verbal questions: what makes them tick, and what you should keep your focus on, is the structure behind that content.

Consider two examples, which may look entirely different but are actually the exact same question:

Example #1: The city of Goshorn has a substantial problem with its budgeting process for public works projects. Last year’s Sullivan Park expansion ran nearly 50% over budget, for example, and the city has gone from running an annual budget surplus for nearly two decades straight to now facing prohibitive budget deficits.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument that Goshorn has a substantial problem with its budgeting process?

(A) The Sullivan Park expansion project featured the smallest cost-above-budget percentage of all Goshorn’s public works projects.
(B) Goshorn’s budgeting process for public works has not been updated in nearly 20 years.
(C) A new hiking and jogging trail in Goshorn cost more than twice as much to construct as did a similar project completed just ten years earlier.
(D) Goshorn’s revenue from property taxes has decreased markedly since the height of the real estate boom five years earlier.
(E) The city of Goshorn does not receive any federal or state funding for its public works projects, although several nearby cities do.

————————————————————
Example #2: The introduction of a new drug into the marketplace should be contingent upon our having a good understanding of its social impact. However, the social impact of the newly marketed antihistamine is far from clear. It is obvious, then, that there should be a general reduction in the pace of bringing to the marketplace new drugs that are now being created.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) The social impact of the new antihistamine is much better understood than that of most new drugs being tested.
(B) The social impact of some of the new drugs being tested is poorly understood.
(C) The economic success of some drugs is inversely proportional to how well we understand their social impact.
(D) The new antihistamine is chemically similar to some of the new drugs being tested.
(E) The new antihistamine should be next on the market only if most new drugs being tested should be on the market also.

In each case, exactly one example is provided as evidence that there is an overall, general problem going on. In the first, that example is Sullivan Park, a project that ran over budget, leading to the conclusion that “the city has a substantial problem with its budgeting process.” In the second, exactly one new antihistamine is known to be poorly understood, leading to the conclusion that there should be a “general reduction” in the pace of bringing drugs to market (since, as the argument states, drugs should be well understood before they’re brought to the marketplace).

This is classic generalization, a common theme in Critical Reasoning problems. One example is given and a much broader conclusion is drawn, which is a flawed argument because you just don’t know whether that example is an outlier or the norm. In each of these two problems, your job is to strengthen the argument, so you want to employ the “Strengthen a Generalization Error” strategy – you want to find evidence in the answer choice that the single piece of evidence is indicative of the majority of data points.

With the first example, Answer Choice A does that by showing that Sullivan Park was actually the best-budgeted project (the smallest cost-above-budget percentage). If that poorly-budgeted project is the best, then all the other projects must be worse, and THEN you have a substantial problem overall. In the second example, again Choice A serves the exact same purpose: if the one antihistamine we know about is better understood than most, then most drugs are less-understood, meaning that the majority of drugs are poorly understood. And if that’s the case, then yes, we can draw that general conclusion.

The overall lesson?

GMAT verbal problems can be about anything under the sun: elections in fake countries, the heights of trees in the Galapagos, warranty claims on heavy duty trucks, the visibility of particles breaking off from comets…but that’s not what the test is about. Focus on the beats, and not the lyrics. And the common Critical Reasoning beats are:

1) Generalization
Like you saw here, if a general/universal conclusion is drawn from one data point, you want to either show that that data point is indicative of most/all (Strengthen) or that it’s an outlier (Weaken).

2) Correlation/Causation
Just because two things occur together (For example, “It’s dark so it must be nighttime.”) does not mean that one causes the other (What about an eclipse, or the fact that your hotel room has blackout shades?).

3) Clever Wordplay
This is the most common type of logical error in Critical Reasoning, in which one premise uses a (for example “arrests”) to the term that another premise and/or the conclusion uses (“crimes committed”). When you identify that those two things are close but not quite the same, then your job is clear: find an answer choice that links them together (in a Strengthen question) or one that shows that they’re clearly not the same thing (Weaken).

4) Statistics and Data Flaws
When statistics are used in Critical Reasoning problems, look to make sure that the proper type of statistic is used (does an absolute number make sense, or should it be a percentage?) and that the statistic to the conclusion (much like the “Clever Wordplay” strategy).

Most importantly, recognize that the content of these problems is more or less a necessary evil: the problems have to be about something, but that’s not what they’re really testing. They’re testing your understanding of the underlying logic and structure. So in honor of all the great DJs that have gotten your shoulders shaking and toes tapping over the years, remember that to beat the GMAT, you’ll have to do it with the beats.

By Brian Galvin.

# Quarter Wit, Quarter Wisdom: Grammatical Structure of Conditional Sentences on the GMAT

Today, we will take a look at the various “if/then” constructions in the GMAT Verbal section. Let us start out with some basic ideas on conditional sentences (though I know that most of you will be comfortable with these):

A conditional sentence (an if/then sentence) has two clauses – the “if clause” (conditional clause) and the “then clause” (main clause).  The “if clause” is the dependent clause, meaning the verbs we use in the clauses will depend on whether we are talking about a real or a hypothetical situation.

Often, conditional sentences are classified into first conditional, second conditional and third conditional (depending on the tense and possibility of the actions), but sometimes we have a separate zero conditional for facts. We will follow this classification and discuss four types of conditionals:

1) Zero Conditional

These sentences express facts; i.e. implications – “if this happens, then that happens.”

• If the suns shines, the clothes dry quickly.
• If he eats bananas, he gets a headache.
• If it rains heavily, the temperature drops.

These conditionals establish universally known facts or something that happens habitually (every time he eats bananas, he gets a headache).

2) First Conditional

These sentences refer to predictive conditional sentences. They often use the present tense in the “if clause” and future tense (usually with the word “will”) in the main clause.

• If I am able to save \$10,000 by year end, I will go to France next year.

3) Second Conditional

These sentences refer to hypothetical or unlikely situations in the present or future. Here, the “if clause” often uses the past tense and the main clause uses conditional mood (usually with the word “would”).

• If I were you, I would take her to the dance.
• If I knew her phone number, I would tell you.
• If I won the lottery, I would travel the whole world.

4) Third Conditional

These sentences refer to hypothetical situations in the past – what could have been different in the past. Here, the “if clause” uses the past perfect tense and the main clause uses the conditional perfect tense (often with the words “would have”).

• If you had told me about the party, I would have attended it.
• If I had not lied to my mother, I would not have hurt her.

Sometimes, mixed conditionals are used here, where the second and third conditionals are combined. The “if clause” then uses the past perfect and the main clause uses  the word “would”.

• If you had helped me then, I would be in a much better spot today.

Now that you know which conditionals to use in which situation, let’s take a look at a GMAT question:

Botanists have proven that if plants extended laterally beyond the scope of their root system, they will grow slower than do those that are more vertically contained.

(A) extended laterally beyond the scope of their root system, they will grow slower than do

(B) extended laterally beyond the scope of their root system, they will grow slower than

(C) extend laterally beyond the scope of their root system, they grow more slowly than

(D) extend laterally beyond the scope of their root system, they would have grown more slowly than do

(E) extend laterally beyond the scope of their root system, they will grow more slowly than do

Now that we understand our conditionals, we should be able to answer this question quickly. Scientists have established something here; i.e. it is a fact. So we will use the zero conditional here – if this happens, then that happens.

…if plants extend laterally beyond the scope of their root system, they grow more slowly than do…

So the correct answer must be (C).

A note on slower vs. more slowly – we need to use an adverb here because “slow” describes “grow,” which is a verb. So we must use “grow slowly”. If we want to show comparison, we use “more slowly”, so the use of “slower” is incorrect here.

Let’s look at another question now:

If Dr. Wade was right, any apparent connection of the eating of highly processed foods and excelling at sports is purely coincidental.

(A) If Dr. Wade was right, any apparent connection of the eating of

(B) Should Dr. Wade be right, any apparent connection of eating

(C) If Dr. Wade is right, any connection that is apparent between eating of

(D) If Dr. Wade is right, any apparent connection between eating

(E) Should Dr. Wade have been right, any connection apparent between eating

Notice the non-underlined part “… is purely coincidental” in the main clause. This makes us think of the zero conditional.

Let’s see if it makes sense:

If Dr. Wade is right, any connection … is purely coincidental.

This is correct. It talks about a fact.

Also, “eating highly processed foods and excelling at sports” is correct.

Hence, our answer must be (D).

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: Listen to Yoda on Sentence Correction You Must

Speak like Yoda this weekend, your friends will. As today marks the release of the newest Star Wars movie, Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, young professionals around the world are lining up dressed as their favorite robot, wookie, or Jedi knight, and greeting each other in Yoda’s famous inverted sentence structure. And for those who hope to awaken the force within themselves to conquer the evil empire that is the GMAT, Yoda can be your GMAT Jedi Master, too.

Learn from Yoda’s speech pattern, you must.

What can Yoda teach you about mastering GMAT Sentence Correction? Beware of inverted sentences, you should. Consider this example, which appeared on the official GMAT:

Out of America’s fascination with all things antique have grown a market for bygone styles of furniture and fixtures that are bringing back the chaise lounge, the overstuffed sofa, and the claw-footed bathtub.

(A) things antique have grown a market for bygone styles of furniture and fixtures that are bringing
(B) things antique has grown a market for bygone styles of furniture and fixtures that is bringing
(C) things that are antiques has grown a market for bygone styles of furniture and fixtures that bring
(D) antique things have grown a market for bygone styles of furniture and fixtures that are bringing
(E) antique things has grown a market for bygone styles of furniture and fixtures that bring

What makes this problem difficult is the inversion of the subject and verb. Much like Yoda’s habit of putting the subject after the predicate, this sentence flips the subject (“a market”) and the verb (“has grown”). And in doing so, the sentence gets people off track – many will see “America’s fascination” as the subject (and luckily so, since it’s still singular) or “all things antique” as the subject. But consider:

• Antique things can’t grow. They’re old, inanimate objects (like those Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader action figures that your mom threw away that would now be worth a lot of money).
• America’s fascination is the reason for whatever is growing. “Out of America’s fascination, America’s fascination is growing” doesn’t make any sense – the cause can’t be its own effect.

So, logically, “a market” has to be the subject. But in classic GMAT style, the testmakers hide the correct answer (B) behind a strange sentence structure. Two, really – people also tend to dislike “all things antique” (preferring “all antique things” instead), but again, that’s an allowable inversion in which the adjective goes after the noun.

Here is the takeaway: the GMAT will employ lots of strange sentence structures, including subject-verb inversion, a la Yoda (but only when it’s grammatically warranted), so you will often need to rely on “The Force” of logic to sift through complicated sentences. Here, that means thinking through logically what the subject of the sentence should be, and also removing modifiers like “out of America’s fascination…” to give yourself a more concise sentence on which to employ that logical thinking (the fascination is causing a market to develop, and that market is bringing back these old types of furniture).

Don’t let the GMAT Jedi mind-trick you out of the score you deserve. See complicated sentence structures, you will, so employ the force of logic, you must.

By Brian Galvin.

# GMAT Tip of the Week

Don’t Swing at the First Pitch

(This is one of a series of GMAT tips that we offer on our blog.)

This week, all eyes were on Las Vegas, as the desert oasis town received a whopping four inches of snow. For baseball fans, however, Las Vegas has been the target of much attention all month, as the Major League Baseball winter meetings took place in Sin City, a perfect place for Steinbrenners and other owners to make risky investments with millions of dollars.

Why is this relevant to the GMAT? As many MBA applicants use this month to finalize their applications, including in many cases a last attempt at the GMAT, it may be helpful to remember the old baseball axiom “don’t swing at the first pitch”, particularly when you face verbal questions.

This tradition in baseball is effective because most batters prefer to get a feel for the pitcher’s style before deciding to select a pitch to hit – should they swing at the first pitch without a sense of the pitcher’s timing and delivery, and maybe the lighting and other conditions of the ballpark, they could quickly and mistakenly pop out without ever getting a comfortable chance at a quality plate appearance.

On the GMAT’s verbal section, students often make a very similar mistake, only in this case “swinging” is akin to “eliminating an answer choice”. On many questions, the writers of the exam can sneak a correct answer choice A by you because it’s not exactly what you’re looking for, but your sense of urgency compels you to hastily cross out the “A” on your noteboard because you are anxious to move forward. By the time you “open up your strike zone,” so to speak, with answer choices C-through-E, you’ve mentally eliminated “A” so emphatically that you won’t allow yourself to return to it, and you end up taking a flier on a poor choice toward the bottom of the screen rather than returning to the answer choices you’ve already eliminated it.

Simply put, if you cannot definitively eliminate answer choice “A”, don’t cross it out until you’ve seen other answer choices to get a feel for what the answer choices contain. You may never find the “perfect” answer that you are anticipating, but once you have seen a couple of answers you will be better equipped to see the fatal flaws in the incorrect answers and judge each more fairly.

For more help on the GMAT, visit Veritas Prep.