Executive Assessment Mock Test - 3 - GMAT MCQ

The answer is No. The statement in question is not necessarily true, as we do not know what politicians “usually’ do, and therefore this is not a valid conclusion just based on the information provided.

Question 2 Explanation: The answer is No. In article 3, we are told that “environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures, emphasizing that the companies are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem.” However, if some oil companies are not following the safest procedures, we cannot infer that safety standards have fallen among oil companies due to the increase in worldwide demand. Perhaps those oil companies are choosing not to follow the safest procedures for other reasons.

Based on the information provided in the three articles, it is likely that Dr. Goodman would support a public referendum on whether to require oil companies to have better safety and ecological regulations.

In Article 1, it is mentioned that there is a greater demand for alternative energy sources due to the inability of governments to put stricter emissions regulations in place. This indicates that there may be concerns about the safety and ecological impact of fossil fuels.

In Article 2, Dr. Goodman criticizes the government's unwillingness to aggressively lobby voters to pass measures to reduce fossil fuel usage. She suggests that a reduction in per-person fossil fuel consumption is necessary to prevent a threefold increase in the rate of global warming. This indicates that she is concerned about the ecological impact of fossil fuels.

In Article 3, some American environmental groups have expressed concern that certain oil companies are not following the safest procedures and are more concerned with the speed of extraction than the well-being of the ecosystem. Additionally, some scientists in the Gulf have called for an increase in safety regulations for oil companies drilling off the coast. This further supports the idea that there may be concerns about the safety and ecological impact of oil companies.

Therefore, the information in the three articles supports the inference that Dr. Goodman would likely support a public referendum on whether to require oil companies to have better safety and ecological regulations.

The answer is No. We cannot infer any direct links between the actions of the oil companies and the votes cast by the public.

The answer is No. The increased demand is implied to have caused the companies to drill more in the Gulf, but there is nothing in the articles to indicate that more supply would mean the companies would have better safety and environmental regulations.

The answer is Yes. The article states that in the past decade, the price rose 500%. There are approximately four decades until 2055, so the price can be expected to increase 4 x 500% = 2000% from where it is now, if current trends continue.

The correct answer choice is the fourth one - cannot be determined. Don’t be tricked into just adding up the percentages. The charts give the relative portions of the rural economy made up by these 4 items, but nowhere are we told absolute amounts - what was the overall size of the economy in 2000 and in 2010? This is necessary to then calculate the overall earnings in these particular areas in 2000 versus in 2010. Since we don’t know in which year the overall economy was larger, or if they were the same, we cannot make this comparison.

The charts give %s of the rural economy. This question asks about percent change in those percentages. The % of the economy taken up by small businesses nearly doubled in these 10 years, for a percent change of nearly 100%. The % of the economy taken up by remittances increased by nearly 6x in these 10 years, for a percent change of around 467%.

So we can quickly eliminate those two. But agriculture and non-farming jobs both decreased by proportionally similar amounts. Which experienced the smaller percent change? Non-farming jobs decreased by 6/24, or 25%. Agriculture decreased by 20/60, or 1/3, or 33%.

Put in these terms, clearly non-farming jobs experienced a smaller % change than non-farming jobs, since 25% is less than 33%. Select the second option: non-farming jobs.

Taking a close look at our curve, we can see that it’s not exactly a bell-curve (with equal rates of decline on either side of the peak) - the rise on the left hand side of the curve is slower than the decline on the right-hand side of the curve. The peak takes place around 100 workers per supervisor, yet 40 workers per supervisor (60 away from the peak value) are just about equally productive as 140 workers per supervisor (40 away from the peak value). If we were to extend a line on the left side of the graph, we will find that at about 30 workers per supervisor, per worker daily production is zero. If we were to extend the trend on the right side of the graph, we will find that at about 155 workers per supervisor,per worker daily production is zero. This suggests that at 160 workers per supervisor, per worker daily production will be negative. Therefore, the company will likely be more productive at 30 workers per supervisor than at 160 workers per supervisor. Choose (B).

Note that extrapolating beyond the range of the data is generally not a good idea and could lead to some nonsensical conclusions. However, since you were asked to assume that the trend stays the same over the range of workers per supervisor values, we can infer that the company will be more productive at 30 workers per supervisor than at 160 workers per supervisor.

At 115 workers per supervisor, we are on the sloping down side of the curve, suggesting that we need to have slightly fewer workers per supervisor. The question asks about which option would increase productivity (not necessarily maximize it, just increase it), and since only one option can be right, it must be that three of the options will not increase productivity and only one will.

First option - Adding more workers will mean moving to the right on the curve - more workers per supervisor - which clearly has lower productivity.

Second option - halving the number of supervisors would mean doubling the number of workers per supervisor, to 230, and as per the trend of the graph, this would presumably have lower productivity.

Third option - doubling the number of supervisors would mean that the ratio of workers to supervisor would be halved, to around 57.5 workers per supervisor, which has a lower productivity rate than 115 workers per supervisor.

Fourth option - with 25% fewer workers, the company would have around 87 workers per supervisor. Looking at the curve, although the difference is not huge, this is clearly a more productive ratio than 115 workers per supervisor. Select this final option.

The author has consistently, throughout the passage, talked of the importance of a scientific approach towards diet. He has also provided examples of how a poorly managed diet can harm humans and concludes by reiterating the same. Hence, option (E) is the correct answer.
(A) The passage never goes into the discussion of the intricacies of cooking.
(B) The author is critical of the human tendency to ignore healthy diet in favor of taste and convenience; however, he does not devote the whole passage to this fact.
(C) The passage makes no mention of this fact.
(D) While the author does mention this, it is not the primary purpose of the entire passage.

The usage of the word ‘rarely’ makes the sentence a negative one— where, in the second para, the author specifically mentions, mostly in negatives, ‘the common method…quite inexplicable’. Hence, (D) is the correct answer.
(A) Inferred from the first para; ‘The brain and other organs of the body…in any capacity’.
(B) The author mentions, towards the end of the first para, how most people ignore the question of what food is good for them, instead paying more attention to what they like to eat or which is more convenient.
(C) In the last para as well as the first, the author has repeatedly stressed how cooking is a science.
(E) Inferred from the third para, where the author has reiterated the need for a scientific approach to cookery.

The decision making ability of the humans is not discussed in the passage nor can it be inferred. Hence, option (D) is the correct answer.
(A) mentioned in the first para
(B) mentioned in the first para
(C) can be inferred from the first para
(E) can be inferred from the first para

Due to the question being asked, the correct answer must follow closely from the statements in the stimulus. An answer that intuitively appears correct yet fails to follow closely from the statements in the stimulus is incorrect.

1. This answer snags a significant number of test takers. However, it is wrong because it draws too broad of a conclusion. The stimulus never indicates that "all" wavelengths that damage the eyes of animals are blocked by a healthy ozone layer. Further, notice the words "which enables more." The word "more" seems to indicate that a healthy ozone enables some wavelengths to pass through.
2. The fact that the decay in the ozone layer is believed to cause permanent eye damage in some animals does not mean other animals do not experience damage. Similarly, a decay of the ozone layer does not mean that wavelengths are entirely unfiltered. It simply means that less filtering of light exists.
3. The location of the animals that are damaged is never discussed and has no relevancy on the issue at hand.
4. Although this statement is true, it is not the main (or even a main) point of the argument. Similarly, the word "severe" is too strong and not supported by the statements in the stimulus.
5. This statement captures the main argument from the stimulus. Further, it is a near rephrase of "which enables some harmful wavelengths of light to reach the earth's surface."

Firm management believes that flex-time will help meet three goals: (1) decrease total costs (2) increase productivity (3) improve product quality.

If the firm's research work requires considerable in-person collaboration, three hours a day of time together will not be sufficient and the firm's plan will lead to decreases in productivity and product quality. This will weaken the management's argument since its plan will not achieve two of its three goals.

1. The presence of new costs associated with flex-time does not weaken the argument that flex-time will decrease total cost as it may well be the case that cost savings outweigh cost increases. In other words, this answer only deals with one side of the equation (cost increases) and not the other side (cost decreases). Consequently, the answer does not enable us to conclude that the argument is weakened since it is entirely possible that on balance, costs will be reduced.
2. Since the firm abandoned it for "unknown reasons," we cannot make a conclusion about the affect of flex-time on costs, productivity, and product quality. It is entirely possible that the competitor abandoned flex-time for reasons not related to these three reasons and, therefore, for reasons not relevant to the argument of the management of the boutique research firm.
3. Since the firm in question performs work that requires frequent and in-person collaboration, it is reasonable to infer that cutting the time spent together at work down from 9 to 3 hours will have a considerable affect on productivity and quality as workers will have severely restricted access to a crucial component of their work (i.e., co-workers).
4. This answer strengthens the argument instead of weakening it. Further, using one employee's situation as an example is not the best grounds to critique an argument.
5. The duration of the project (in and of itself) has nothing to do with costs, productivity, or product quality. Given the information in the question and in this answer, an argument could be made that flex-time will increase quality (employees enjoy their work more with flex-time and work harder).

The argument concludes that "common medical problems such as depression" "will be all but eliminated through early identification and genetic therapy." This is based upon the assumption that the only cause of these common medical problems is a treatable genetic deformity. If this assumption proves false (and problems arise from non-genetic issues), the argument's conclusion is not logical as the genetic therapy would not stop common medical problems that were caused by non-genetic factors.

1. The original argument does not pertain to the number of treatments for common medical problems but rather pertains to the ability of early identification and genetic therapy to eliminate common medical problems. Consequently, whether there is only one method (the one described) or one million methods is irrelevant.
2. This answer points out that if common medical problems arise either in part or in whole for reasons that are not genetic, early genetic detection and therapy will not rectify the problem. The assumption that these common medical problems are based entirely on treatable genetic malformations is an essential part of the argument.
3. This may be a logical result (or consequence) if the original argument proves to be true. However, it is not a necessary assumption for the original argument to be true.
4. The original argument pertains to the ability of doctors to treat "common medical problems" when they exist not whether these "common medical problems" exist in everyone. Further, the original argument hinges on the assumption that these problems are rooted in genetic defects and treatable via genetic therapy.
5. The original argument pertains to common medical problems such as depression and not to "each human defect or sickness." Further, the original argument assumes that genetic therapy alone is sufficient to treat the problem while this answer simply states that all human defects or sickness can be traced in part to (and not necessarily treated by) genetics.

There are two main grammatical issues that are being tested in this problem.

(1) the slew of programs is a singular subject and must be matched with a singular verb (i.e., has)

(2) The two actions meant to be accomplished by the slew of programs must be parallel: (a) engendering healthy intra-bank credit flows (b) reviving depressed equity prices.

1. The subject and verb agree; the actions meant to be accomplished by the slew of programs are parallel
2. The subject (the slew of programs, which is singular) does not agree with the verb (have, which is plural)
3. The two actions meant to be accomplished by the slew of programs are not parallel. I.e., the phrase engendering ... and bringing about the ... is not parallel
4. The subject (the slew of programs, which is singular) does not agree with the verb (have, which is plural); The two actions meant to be accomplished by the slew of programs are not parallel. I.e., the phrase engendering ... and to revive is not parallel
5. The two actions meant to be accomplished by the slew of programs are not parallel. I.e., the phrase engendering ... along with a revival of is not parallel

There is one main problem with the original sentence.

(1)The sentence is constructed in a misleading fashion, giving the impression that conservatives criticized Bush’s promise as opposed to his breaking of that promise. When read in its entirety, the sentence incorrectly indicates that it wasn’t Bush’s promise that received considerable criticism but his breaking of the promise.

When correcting this sentence, it is important to keep parallelism in mind.
Each part of the economic conservatives’ philosophy must be parallel. To do this, the sentence should read: whose philosophy decried..., insisted..., and contended

1. The sentence is constructed in a misleading fashion, giving the impression that the conservatives criticized Bush’s promise as opposed to his breaking of that promise
2. The sentence correctly states that it was Bush (not his past promise) that received criticism; the objections of economic conservatives are listed in a parallel fashion
3. The sentence is constructed in a misleading fashion, giving the impression that the conservatives criticized Bush’s promise as opposed to his breaking of that promise; this sentence gives the misleading understanding of the objections of economic conservatives (i.e., it seems to imply that the insistence that low taxes create wealth, and the contention that deregulation promoted innovation are not explanations for or parts of the economic conservatives' objections)
4. Each part of the economic conservatives’ philosophy is not parallel (i.e., the phrase who decried tax hikes, having insisted ... and contending that ... is not parallel)
5. Each part of the economic conservatives’ philosophy is not parallel (i.e., the phrase who decried tax hikes, insist ... and contend... is not parallel)

There are two main problems with this sentence.

(1) The subject (the first United States Solicitor General) does not have a verb.

(2) The past perfect tense had served is wrong as the phrase earlier in his life makes it clear that his service as a lieutenant occurred before his service as solicitor general. Consequently, the past perfect tense is not needed to differentiate the timing of the two events in the past.

1. the subject (the first United States Solicitor General) does not have a verb
2. the past perfect tense had served is wrong as it conveys the idea that his service in the Grant administration occurred before he was born
3. the subject (the first United States Solicitor General) does not have a verb
4. the past perfect tense had served is wrong as the phrase earlier in his life makes it clear that his service as a lieutenant occurred before his service as solicitor general
5. the past perfect tense is not used; the subject (the first United States Solicitor General) has a verb

The copy machine produces 20 copies of the one-page document each minute. Because there are 60 minutes in an hour, the constant rate of 20 copies per minute is equal to 60 x 20 = 1,200 copies per hour. With the machine working at this rate, the amount of time that it takes to produce 4,800 copies of the document is 

4800 copies  / 1200 copies/hours  = 4 hours

x + y = 2 given

y = 2 - x subtract x from both sides 

x² + (2 - x)² = 2 substitute y = 2 - x into x² + y² = 2 

2x² - 4x + 4 = 2 expand and combine like terms 

2x² - 4x + 2 = 0 subtract 2 from both sides

x² - 2x + 1 = 0 divide both sides by 2 

(x - l)(x - 1) = 0 factor

x = 1 set each factor equal to 0 

y = 1 use x = l and y = 2 - x

xy = 1  multiply 1 and 1 

The correct answer is D .

The boat traveled in a straight line from docking station #2 on the west dock to one of the docking stations on the south dock, passing through a single point that is both due east of docking station #4 and due north of docking station #7. Call this point P. Having traveled to P, the boat was both 2d south of its starting point and 2d east of its starting point. Therefore, traveling in a straight line, the boat traveled one unit south for every one unit traveled east. And because at point P the boat was a distance d north of the south dock, the boat must have reached the south dock at a point which is a distance of d east of docking station #7 (which is due south of point P). This point is the position of doctang station #8. The boat therefore arrived at docking station #8.

The correct answer is B

This question is most efficiently answered by distributing the 6 over 87.30 and 0.65, and then combining the terms that contain a factor of 87.30, as follows:
6(87.30 + 0.65) - 5(87.30) = 6 (87.30) + 6 (0.65) - 5 (87.30) = (6 - 5) 87.30 + 6(0.65) = 87.30 + 3.90 = 91.20

The correct answer is D.

The figure shows points A, B, C, and D as well as the given measurements.
Since AC = AB + BC, it
follows that 4 = 3 + BC, and so BC =  1.
Then, since BD =BC+ CD, it follows that 6 = 1 + CD, and so CD= 5.
Alternately, AD = AB + BD = 3 + 6 = 9.
Also, AD = AC + CD,so 9 = 4 + CD and CD = 5. 

The correct answer 1s E.

Given that x = -2,y = 1, and z = 3, it follows by substitution that
x²yz - xyz² = (-2)² (1)(3)- (- 2)(1)(3²)
= (4)(1)(3) - (- 2)(1)(9)
= 12 - (-18)
= 12 + 18
= 30

The correct answer is C.

Evaluate Statement 1 ALONE
Statement 1: The sales booked by the salesman in the month of November 2003 minus salesman's commission was $245,000

From statement 1, we know the value of sales after the salesman's commission is subtracted.
From the question stem, we know his commission is 3% of the sales booked. Then value of sales after subtracting his commission is 100 − 3 = 97% of the sales booked.
Putting the two together, we can deduce that 97% of sales booked = $245,000. So we can find out the sales booked.
Statement 1 ALONE is SUFFICIENT.
Eliminate choices B, C, and E.
Answers narrow down to choices (A) or (D).

Evaluate Statement 2 ALONE
Statement 2: The selling price of the sales booked by the salesman in the month of November 2003 was 125 percent of the original purchase price of $225,000.

From statement 2, we know that the original purchase of the products is $225,000.
We can compute the sales booked as 125% of 225,000 = 1.25 × 225,000.
Statement 2 ALONE is SUFFICIENT.
Each statement is INDEPENDENTLY sufficient.

Choice D is the correct answer.

Evaluate Statement (1) ALONE: x is divisible by 6
Approach: Look for a counter example

Example: x = 6. It is divisible by 6. However, it is NOT divisible by 12.
Counter Example: x = 12. It is divisible by 6. It is divisible by 12 as well.
Knowing that x is divisible by 6 is not enough to answer the question.

If x is divisible by 6, we can infer that it is divisible by 3 and 2. But we cannot deduce whether it is also divisible by 22 - which is essential to deduce that x is divisible by 12.

Statement 1 ALONE is NOT sufficient.
Eliminate choices A and D. Choices narrow down to B, C, or E.

Evaluate Statement (2) ALONE: x is divisible by 8
If x is divisible by 8, then x will definitely be divisible by 4.
However, from statement (2) alone we do not know if x is divisible by 3.
Alternative Approach: Look for a counter example

Example: x = 8. It is divisible by 8. However, it is NOT divisible by 12.
Counter Example: x = 24. It is divisible by 8. It is divisible by 12 as well.
Knowing that x is divisible by 8 is not enough to answer the question.

Statement 2 ALONE is NOT sufficient.
Eliminate choice B. Choices narrow down to C or E.

Evaluate Statements (1) & (2) Together: x is divisible by 6 & x is divisible by 8
From statement 1, if x is divisible by 6, it is definitely divisible by 3.
From statement 2, if x is divisible by 8, it is definitely divisible by 4.
So, by combining the two statements, we can conclude that x is divisible by 3 and by 4.
Or that x is divisible by 12.

Statement TOGETHER are sufficient. Choice C is the answer.

Evaluate Statement (1) ALONE: (a + b)² < (a - b)²

Expanding both sides of the inequality, we get a² + b² + 2ab < a² + b² - 2ab
Simplifying we get, 4ab < 0 or ab < 0.
So, we can conclude that ab is not positive. We have got a definite NO as the answer.

Statement 1 ALONE is sufficient.
Eliminate choices B, C and E. Choices narrow down to A or D.

Evaluate Statement (2) ALONE: a = b

This is actually the statement that could trick you.
a = b.
So, either both a and b or positive or both a and b are negative. In either case ab is positive.
We will certainly be "tempted" to decide that statement 2 is also sufficient.

The catch is that, both a and b could be 0. In that case ab = 0, which is not positive.
If 'a' and 'b' are either both positive or both negative, the answer is yes. If both are 0, the answer is no.
As we are not able to conclude whether ab is positive with statement 2, it is not sufficient.

Statement 2 ALONE is NOT sufficient.
Eliminate choice D.

Statement 1 ALONE is sufficient but statement 2 is not sufficient. Choice A is the answer.

Evaluate Statement (1) ALONE: (P + 2) and (P - 2) are prime.

Inference: (P - 2), P and (P + 2) are 3 consecutive odd integers.
Why?
Because (P - 2) and (P + 2) are prime, both numbers have to be odd.
(P - 2), P, and (P + 2) are three numbers in an arithmetic progression with a common difference of 2.
So, the 3 numbers have to be 3 consecutive odd or consecutive even integers. If (P - 2) and (P + 2) are odd, then these 3 numbers have to be 3 consecutive odd integers.

One out of 3 consecutive odd integers, (P - 2), P, and (P + 2) will definitely be a multiple of '3'.
If (P + 2) and (P - 2) are prime, then P has to be a multiple of '3', which is not prime.

The only exception is if the 3 consecutive odd numbers are 3, 5, and 7. However, we are dealing with two digit positive integers. So that possibility is ruled out.

Statement 1 ALONE is sufficient.
Eliminate choices B, C, and E. Choices narrow down to A or D.

Evaluate Statement (2) ALONE: (P - 4) and (P + 4) are prime.

This is a brilliant statement.
1. The remainder when (P - 4) and (P - 1) are divided by 3 will be the same.
2. Similarly, the remainder when (P + 4) and (P + 1) are divided by 3 will be the same.
If (P - 4) and (P + 4) are prime, both (P - 4) and (P + 4) will leave a remainder when divided by 3.

Therefore, (P - 1) and (P + 1) will also leave a remainder when divided by 3. i.e., they are not divisible by 3.
(P - 1), P, (P + 1) are 3 consecutive positive integers.
One out of 3 consecutive integers, (P - 1), P, and (P + 1) will definitely be a multiple of '3'.
If (P - 1) and (P + 1) are not divisible by 3, then P has to be a multiple of '3'.
P cannot be 3 because P is a 2-digit number. So, that possiblity is ruled out.
Any 2-digit number that is a multiple of 3 cannot be prime.
Therefore, P is not prime.

Statement 2 ALONE is also sufficient.
Eliminate choice A.

Each statement is INDEPENDENTLY sufficient. Choice D is the answer.

Evaluating Statement (1) ALONE: m > a

If a = b = c = d, the average m will be the same as a.
Since m > a, all the elements in the set cannot be the same, and therefore, s > 0.

Statement 1 ALONE is sufficient.
Eliminate choices B, C and E. Choices narrow down to A or D.

Evaluating Statement (2) ALONE: a + b + c + d = 0

Approach: Look for a counter example

Example: When a = b = c = d = 0, s = 0
Counter Example: When a = -4, b = 0, c = 0, and d = 4, s > 0

Statement 2 ALONE is NOT sufficient.
Eliminate choice D.

Statement 1 ALONE is sufficient. Choice A is the answer.