Executive Assessment Mock Test - 1 - GMAT MCQ

This is a slightly trickier question. First, we need to identify the first year in which Company B’s revenues overtook Company A’s revenues. This would be the first year on the chart for which the red column is higher than the blue column. The first time this happens is 2007. In 2007, A made something just above $90K, say $93K, and B made something just below $140K, say $138K. We want to know how much more Company B earned, so we subtract: $138K – $93K = $45K, and this is answer A.

Evaluate the statements one by one.

Statement I: Independent schools constitute the high percentage of high schools in Grangerville with both a dedicated computer lab and a computer in every classroom. Schools with both a dedicated computer lab and a computer in every classroom are the overlap region of the two Venn circles. There are three schools in that region, and two are independent, so independent schools constitute the majority of that region. Statement I is true.

Statement II: Public Schools are tied for the highest percentage of high schools of Grangerville with a dedicated computer lab. The schools with a dedicated computer lab are the left Venn circle, the whole of the circle including the overlap region. In this circle, there are 12 schools —- 5 parochial, 4 public, and 3 independent. Therefore, parochial schools only constitute the highest percentage of that region, and public schools are a clear second. Statement II is false. Statement III: Public Schools constitute the highest percentage of high schools of Grangerville with either a dedicated computer lab or a computer in every Schools with either a dedicated computer lab or a computer in every classroom constitute the combined area of the two Venn circles. There are 14 schools in that region —- 6 public, 5 parochial, and 3 independent. Public schools constitute the majority of that region. Statement III is true.

The answer is 6 and 24. This question allows us to set up two linear equations, and solve for each variable. It there are 15 pairs total, then there are 30 members combined on Teams Legato and Forte:
30 = L + F
We also know that Legato has ¼ as many members as Forte:
4L = F
Let’s substitute and solve:
30 = L + 4L
30 = 5L
6 = L
So there are 6 members on Team Legato, and 24 members on Team Forte.

The answer is 1770 and 105. If there are 60 members on Forte, then there are 15 members of Legato. We’re choosing 2 from 60, and 2 from 15, so we’d need to use the Combination formula:
60! / (60-2)! 2! = 60 x 59 / 2 = 30 x 59 = 1770
15! / (15-2)! 2! = 15 x 14 / 2 = 15 x 7 = 105

The answer is 3 million and 10,000. This is a permutation question. The first thing we must find is the number of members on each team. 20 pairs total means we have 40 individuals. Team Legato has 1/4 as many members as Team Forte, so 1/4y + y = 40.
5/4y = 40
y = 32
Team Legato will have 8 members, and Team Forte will have 32 members.

We have three places, with six slots each, and we know that one team cannot “sweep,” and also that Team Legato must come in first place. The possible arrangements for team-placement are two:
Team L, Team F, Team L
Team L, Team L, Team F

Now we must consider how many ways we can order people within each placing team. In Outcome 1, we’d have 8 * 7 arrangements for Team Legato in first place, 32 * 31 arrangements for Team Forte in second place, and 6 *5 arrangements for Team Legato in third place.

8 * 7 * 32 * 31 * 6 * 5 = 1,666,560 possible placements for the individual team members. We must double this number to account for either possible team-placement, so the answer is approximately 3 million.

If there were half as many participants, there would be 20 individuals, so 16 on Team Forte and 4 on Team Legato. In Outcome 1, we’d have 4*3 for 1st place, 16*15 for 2nd place, and 2*1 for 3rd place. The possible arrangements would be 5760 for each outcome, or 11,520 total.

Question 5 Explanation: The answer is 160 and 3. Customer 1 deposits $100 initially into the new account. If the amount P is invested at an annual interest rate of r percent, compounded n times per year, then the value V of the investment at the end of t years is given by the formula:

So after two years, the investment will be worth $146.41. That amount is then compounded annually for two more years at the adjusted rate of 5%. This formula becomes V = 146.41(1 + .05)2. This becomes V = 161.42. Customer 1’s investment is worth approximately $161 after four years, which is closest to 160 in the table.

Customer 2 had an equal amount after two years, so he/she would also have $146.41. Then the interest is compounded quarterly for the next two years at 6%. The formula for this would look like:

That is a difference of 164.93 – 161.42 = 3.51, which is closest to 3.

For this question, all we have to do is look at Card Two. In particular, we just need the formulas for TV & Movie Advertising and for Web-based advertising.

TV & Movie: N = 2X/3 – 10

Web-based: N = X/4

All we have to do is set these two equations equal:

2X/3 – 10 = X/4

Multiply every term by 4:

8X/3 – 40 = X

Now, multiply every term by 3:

8X – 120 = 3X

5X = 120

X = 24

At a level of spending of $24,000, new customers from these two sources are, on average, equal.

We can see from the chart that there are four subareas in Management, so you can immediately eliminate the options with only 2 other items on the list. A geometric progression means that the next item in the list can be calculated by multiplying the current term by a constant factor.

2, 4, 8, 12 do not form a geometric progression, since 2 x 2=4, 4 x 2 = 8, but 8 x 2 does not equal 12. 10, 11, 12, 13 are an arithmetic progression, not a geometric progression. In addition, neither of those 2 options sum to 45, as the chart indicates is the total # of courses in Management. However, 3, 6, 12, 24 is a geometric progression (with factor 2), and it correctly sums to 45 total courses. 12, 15, 18 does sum to 45, but it has the wrong number of subareas and it is an arithmetic progression, not a geometric one. 4, 12, 36 is a geometric progression, but it doesn’t sum to 45 and it has the wrong number of subareas.

From the overall text of the second paragraph, it is obvious that the author considered it improper to be forcibly charged for a ceremonial armband. He was further unhappy at the price of the armband, which was more than his daily pay at that time. Thus, (A) should be the correct answer.
(B) While this fact is mentioned in the previous line in the passage, this is not the reason why the author addresses Messrs Gieves as thieves.
(C) The author is implying that the armbands were expensive and not that he was underpaid.
(D) There is nothing in the passage to suggest that the author was miserly.
(E) This could be true but again is not the reason why the author addresses Messrs Gieves as thieves.

The lifestyle of the ‘Grand mum’ can be discerned from the opening lines of the passage - ‘racehorse loving, gin and tonic drinking’. Such a lifestyle can hardly be called ‘Conservative’ or ‘Philanthropic’. Again, there is nothing in the passage to suggest that the Queen’s life was inspiring. It was also not sedentary because ‘race horse loving’ gives the opposite sense. ‘Extravagant’ is the best word to describe her lifestyle. Hence, the answer should be (A).

Analyzing the Argument

Look for differences across the answer options to identify what is being tested in the sentence.

• Linda’s argument has a cause-effect relationship and a comparison element as well.

  • The causal argument is that the safety of women (or low mortality among women) is dependent on the hygiene awareness among the doctors.

  • The comparison element is that women today are better off than the women in the 1800s.

• If Fiona is to question Linda’s argument, she has to establish that one of these two (the causal and the comparison) relationships do not actually hold true. This is the reason that Fiona’s argument tries to establish that awareness is not enough. Mortality is also affected by the actual practices of the doctors.

• To further weaken Linda’s argument, the correct answer Option must extend this discussion or question whether women today are actually better off than the women from the 1800s.

Eliminating Options

• Option (B) can be eliminated because we do not know whether these hospital-acquired infections were because of poor practices of the doctors or because of other factors.

• Option (C) can be eliminated because the option adds further support to Linda’s argument, when in fact the objective is to weaken her argument.

• Option (D) can be eliminated because the option again adds support to Linda’s argument. Some people wonder about the usage of the words “self-reported”, which might imply that the 90% figure may not be accurate. However, it cannot be assumed that the doctors are lying or that the actual rate is much lower than 90%.

• Option (E) seems to imply that the nurses do not have proper practices in place. At first glance, the option seems to work. However, the option assumes that doctors do not adhere to the schedules, implying that nurses are as bad. Nurses and doctors could both be GOOD at sticking to the cleansing schedules. Moreover, the focus of the discussion is on the practice of doctors and not of nurses.

• Option (A) works because it establishes another reason for carelessness among doctors when it comes to hygiene. If doctors believe they do not carry pathogens, they are more likely to be careless about cleansing schedules.

Choice A is the correct answer.

Analyzing the Argument

Alan’s argument is that the government should take steps to reduce poverty in an effort to reduce all kinds of crime from petty theft to terrorism.

Dylan quotes a study in another country that showed that the motives behind theft and terrorism are not the same and that tackling one need not tackle the other.

Essentially, Dylan agrees with one part of Alan’s argument (that financial reasons motivate theft), disagrees with another part (terrorism is not motivated by financial factors but rather political or religious factors) and hence believes that the recommendation made by Alan to the government would not be effective.

Process of Elimination

• Option (A) can be eliminated because Dylan is not entirely changing the direction of the conversation. Even if the study he quotes is about another country, he is still focusing on the factors that motivate crime.

• Option (C) can be eliminated because Dylan is not broadening but questioning Alan’s argument. For (C) to be true, Dylan must be saying something along the lines that the conclusion that Alan has drawn apply universally to all countries.

• Option (E) can also be eliminated. The two are arriving at different conclusions but (E) claims that they are arriving at the same conclusion.

• At first glance, both options (B) and (D) look like they are representing Dylan’s reasoning. However, Dylan is not refuting Alan’s recommendation itself but the effectiveness of the recommendation – He is not saying the government must not alleviate poverty but rather than alleviating poverty will not necessarily curb terrorism. Option (B) can therefore, be eliminated.

• Option (D) works because Alan is assuming that what is true for theft is true for terrorism and Dylan is pointing out that it need not be the case.

Choice D is the correct answer.

There are two main issues with this sentence.

(1) Since the double taxation would occur if the company.., we are dealing with a future hypothetical situation (or possibility) and must use the subjunctive mood. Consequently, if the company were must replace if the company was.

(2) The two things that are true about the owners of the LLC must be parallel: they receive...and avoid. The original sentence improperly breaks the parallelism (i.e., the phrase receive..., and they also avoid is not parallel).

1. the subjunctive mood is not used; the sentence is not parallel (i.e., the phrase receive..., and they also avoid is not parallel)
2. the subjunctive mood is not used
3. the subjunctive mood is not used; the sentence is not parallel (i.e., the phrase receive..., avoiding is not parallel)
4. the sentence is not parallel (i.e., the phrase receive..., and avoid is not parallel)
5. the subjunctive mood is used; the sentence is parallel (i.e., the phrase receive... and avoid is parallel)

This question tests the idiom: either X or Y where both X and Y are parallel.

In the original sentence, the construction is not idiomatic: either seeing...or they viewed should be replaced by: either seeing...or viewing

1. the phrase either seeing...or they viewed does not following the proper idiom the author attempts to use: either X or Y where both X and Y are parallel
2. the phrase either seeing Joshua's efforts as...or viewing Joshua's strategy... is parallel
3. the phrase seeing either ... or viewing does not follow the idiom the author attempts to use: either X or Y where both X and Y are parallel
4. the second as an in the phrase seeing Joshua’s efforts as a desperate and as an unprofessional manner is unnecessary, wordy, and disruptive to the flow of the sentence
5. the phrase seeing either ... or they viewed does not follow the idiom the author attempts to use: either X or Y where both X and Y are parallel

There are three problems with the sentence:

(1) The pronoun them (which is a plural pronoun) improperly refers back to the National Security Agency (which is a singular noun). As the sentence is currently constructed, one could construe the meaning as United States Congressmen were allowed to eavesdrop when the intention is that the Congressmen authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop.

(2) It is imperative that the two powers that the Congressmen granted the National Security Agency appear in parallel: to eavesdrop ... and [to] pass along.

(3) evidence from the calls is somewhat imprecise and can be improved by saying evidence from those calls, which more explicitly refers back to the calls on which the National Security Agency eavesdropped.

1. The pronoun them (which is a plural pronoun) improperly refers back to the National Security Agency (which is a singular noun)
2. The phrase the calls on which it eavesdropped is precise, but it is too wordy and could be replaced by those calls
3. The singular pronoun it properly refers back to the singular noun National Security Agency; those calls is concise; to eavesdrop and [to] pass along are parallel
4. The pronoun them (which is a plural pronoun) improperly refers back to the National Security Agency (which is a singular noun); the two powers that the Congressmen granted the National Security Agency are not parallel (i.e., to eavesdrop ... and passing along); to be is wordy and unnecessary
5. The two powers that the Congressmen granted the National Security Agency are not parallel (i.e., to eavesdrop ... and passing along); to be is wordy and unnecessary

There are two major issues with the sentence as it was originally written:

(1) This sentence improperly uses much to describe a countable quantity (i.e., pollutants) when many should be used instead. In proper English, much is used for uncountable quantities (e.g., much of the water) while many is used for countable quantities (e.g., many apples, many gifts).

(2) The subject of the sentence (untraceable pollutants, which is plural) does not agree with the verb of the sentence (comes, which is singular).

1. Much is wrongly used to describe a countable quantity when many should be used instead; the subject (pollutants) does not agree with the verb (comes)
2. Much is wrongly used to describe a countable quantity when many should be used instead
3. the subject (pollutants) does not agree with the verb (comes)
4. Much is wrongly used to describe a countable quantity when many should be used instead; the phrase to kill fish and harming humans is not parallel (i.e., to kill is not parallel with harming, which should be harm)
5. Many is correctly used with a countable quantity; the subject and verb are both plural

In the underlined portion two people govern together. They are the subjects of the sentence. The pronoun him is an objective pronoun, meaning it is used to show the object of a sentence. Thus it in the wrong case and must be changed to he- the subjective pronoun: (1) him and Chirac governed together. OR (2) he and Chirac governed together.

1. Uses him, an objective pronoun in place of the subject.
2. Uses them, another objective pronoun. They would be correct.
3. Uses him, an objective pronoun in place of the subject.
4. Sentence structure confuses meaning: it seems that he and Chirac resulted in a period known as Cohabitation
5. contains pronoun agreement without sacrificing meaning or flow.

There are two issues in this question.

(1) Since the phrase in quotes is not actually true but is instead expressing a wish or desire for the future, the subjunctive mood should be used. Consequently, if I were should replace if I was

(2) The word also is unnecessary as it is redundant and impairs parallelism: I would be ashamed...and also [I would] resign should be replaced by I would be ashamed...and [I would] resign

1. the phrase is not in the subjunctive mood as it should be; the word also should be removed
2. the phrase is in the subjunctive mood as it should be; the word also has been removed
3. the phrase is not in the subjunctive mood as it should be
4. the word also should be removed; the second would is not necessary as it is implied and understood from the first would since what follows the first would is a list
5. the phrase is not in the subjunctive mood as it should be; the second would is not necessary as it is implied and understood from the first would since what follows the first would is a list

1. Using the basic distance equation, Distance = Rate(Time), you can write the following equation:
   D = RT
   100 Meter Run: x = r₁₀₀(5)
   r₁₀₀ = x/5
2. Since the question states that Peter will run 200 meters "at the same rate," you can write the following equation:
   D = RT
   z = r₂₀₀(T)
   Since r₁₀₀ = r₂₀₀
   z = (x/5)(T)
3. Since the question asks for the time, variable T, you need to solve for T:
   z = (x/5)(T)
   T = 5z/x

1. Start by combining the two equations. Since the second equation is already solved for y, plug it into the first equation to yield:
   2x + 3y = 16
   Since y = -6x
   2x + 3(-6x)=16
2. Simplify like terms:
   2x + 3(-6x) = 16
   2x + (-18x) = 16
   -16x = 16.
3. Divide by -16 to yield x = -1. Be careful though: the question asks for the value of -x, not x.
4. Since x = -1, -x = 1. So the correct answer is E.

1. We are interested in the sales of the old month. We know that the new month had 25% more sales than the old. Since a 25% increase is equal to multiplying a number by 1.25 (=100% + 25% = 1 + .25), we can write the following equation:
   1.25(Old month sales) = $1,000,000
   Divide both sides by 1.25 to yield $800,000 for the value of sales for the past month.
   (Old month sales) = $800,000
2. Be careful that you are not tricked into choosing answer B at this point. The question asks for the amount per day, not per month.
3. To get the amount per day, divide the monthly amount by 30 to yield $26,666 per day (=$800,000/30).
4. The question asks for an approximate value, so answer D, $27,000, is the closest and is correct.

1. In order to find out "how many more liters of water than liters of oil are in 200 liters of solution x", we must first find out the quantity of each component in 200 liters.
2. For water, 75% of 200 liters is 150 liters of water:
   (200 liters)(0.75 water concentration) = 150 liters of water
3. For oil, 25% of 200 liters is 50 liters of oil:
   (200 liters)(0.25 oil concentration) = 50 liters of oil
4. The difference between the two is 150-50, which equals 100 liters. Thus, 200 liters of solution x contains 100 liters more water than it does oil. The correct answer is E.

In order to solve this problem, it is extremely helpful to set up a matrix, organizing the information and methodically filling it in.

If 30% of the computers are laptops, 70% of the computers are desktops (note: you could not make this inference unless the problem said that all the computers are "desktops or laptops").

If 80% of the computers have more than 1GB of RAM, 20% of the computers have less than 1GB of RAM. (Note: The problem stated that no computers had exactly 1GM of RAM).

If 10% of the computers with less than 1GB of RAM [known to be 20% of all computers] are laptops, then (.1)(.2) = .02 or 2% of all computers are laptops with less than 1GB of RAM.
Laptop Desktop
< 1GB of RAM 2% 20%
> 1GB of RAM 80%
30% 70% x

Since the percents rows must add up, you can fill in the values:
Laptop Desktop
< 1GB of RAM 10% of 20% = 2% 90% of 20% = 18% 20%
> 1GB of RAM 28% 52% 80%
30% 70% x

The final graph is as follows:
Laptop Desktop
< 1GB of RAM 2% 18% 20%
> 1GB of RAM 28% 52% 80%
30% 70% x

Since the question asks "what percent of the desktops [not total number of computers] have more than 1GB of RAM," the correct answer is (percent of desktops with more than 1GB of RAM) / (percent of desktops) = 52%/70% = about 75%

Note: If the concept of dividing percents is causing you trouble, let x = 100 and fill in accordingly.
Laptop Desktop
< 1GB of RAM 2% or 2 18% or 18 20% or 20
> 1GB of RAM 28% or 28 52% or 52 80% or 80
30% or 30 70% or 70 x = 100

1. The number of individuals that had infection A is 1/3 of N, or N/3.
   Infection A: N/3
2. The number of individuals that also had infection B is 1/5 of the number that had infection A. In other words, it is (1/5)A = (1/5)(N/3) = N/15.
   Infection B: (1/5)A = (1/5)(N/3) = N/15
3. If N/15 of the N individuals have infection A and B, then N – (N/15) did not have both infection A and B. Consequently, 14N/15 individuals did not have both infection A and infection B.
   Neither A or B: N - (N/15) = 14N/15

The correct response is (A).

The first statement allows us to express the total number of children in the first two groups in terms of the number of children in the third group. Let’s call the smaller groups A and B, and the largest group C. Thus, we can express the first statement: A + B = C.

We know from the question-stem that A + B + C = 50
So we know C = 50 – (A + B).

Using substitution, C = 50 – C.
2C = 50
C = 25. Sufficient.

The second statement tells us the value of A, the smallest group.

This only tells us that 6 + B + C = 50. Without knowing B, we cannot determine a unique value for C.

The correct answer is (B).

(1) If it costs more than $1,000 annually to feed 4 raccoons, we do not have enough information to answer either yes or no to the original question. It could cost $2,000 to feed 4 raccoons, in which case it WOULD cost more than $2,000 to feed 7 raccoons. Or, it could cost only $1,000 and one cent to feed 4 raccoons, in which case feeding 3 more would be less than an additional $1,000, and the answer would be no. This statement is insufficient.

(2) If it costs more than $1,500 annually to feed 5 raccoons, then the smallest cost for each animal is a little over $300. $300 x 7 raccoons = $2,100. Sufficient.

The correct response is (D).

The missing information here is the value of s. Both statements allow us to find s. Statement (1) allows us to do so by simplifying and solving the equation for s. From Statement (2) we know we can find “z” from the information given in the question stem. Once we find z, we can plug in for s. From the question stem we can calculate z% as follows:

Simple interest = principal x rate x time. $450 = $8000 * z/100 * 1, so z = 5.625%. Now that we know z, we can plug in to solve for s in Statement (2).

The correct response is (C).

(1) If no additional voters are added to the bloc, and 4 of the current voters leave the bloc, there will be fewer than 20 voters.

We can translate the given information into an inequality: x – 4 < 20, where “x” is the number of current voters. We know x < 24, but we cannot determine an exact value for x.

(2) If 4 more voters join the bloc and all of the present voters remain, there will be at least 27 voters.

We can translate the given information into an inequality: x + 4 ≥ 27. “At least” means there could be 27 OR more than 27 in the bloc. This inequality simplifies to x ≥ 23. We do not know the exact value of x based on this inequality.

Combining both statements we know 23 ≤ x < 24. If x must be less than 24, but greater or equal to 23, the only number that satisfies both conditions is 23.

If you chose (D), keep in mind that each statement alone only allows us to limit the range of possible values for “x,” but not find the actual numerical value. For a “value” DS question, if more than one number is possible, the statement cannot be sufficient.

If you chose (E), you may not have realized that we could have expressed the information in the statements as inequalities. Both statements combined then allow us to limit the range of possible values to one, so combined they are sufficient.

The correct response is (B).

(1) 7y is an integer.

If you chose (A), note that it is possible for 7y to be an integer when y is an integer. For example, if y = 1, 7y = 7. However, it is also possible for 7y to be an integer when y is not an integer. For example, if 7y = 1, then y =1/7.

(2) y/7 is an integer.

If y/7 is an integer, then y must be a multiple of 7. All multiples of 7 are themselves integers (7, 14, 21, etc.).

If you chose (C), you failed to recognize that Statement (2) was sufficient by itself, as there is no value we can choose for y that makes y/7 an integer that is not itself an integer. Picking numbers can help you see this relationship more clearly.

The correct response is (B).

We know from the question that each family member got at least 1 present, that they all got the same number of presents, and that no presents were left over. Based on this information, we can write the following inequality:

(1) The first statement would be useful if we needed to know the number of family members, but it doesn't help to answer this yes/no question.

(2) Based on the information in statement (2), we can write the following inequality:

Combining the information in statement (2) and the information in the question stem, we find that:

Since each family member got at least one present, and the number of presents per family member is less than 2, we can conclude that each family member received only one present.

The answer to the original question is NO. However, if we can answer YES/NO to a data sufficiency question based on the information in a statement, then that statement is sufficient. Statement (2) is sufficient.