Test: Numbers and Percents - GMAT MCQ

Let's analyze each statement and see which one is best supported by the given information.

(A) The cost to harvest a bale of wheat in Country S increased by 25 percent.

• This statement is not directly supported by the given information. The price increase mentioned in the passage does not necessarily mean that the cost to harvest the wheat has increased by the same percentage. It is possible that Country S raised its price for reasons unrelated to the cost of production.

(B) If Country S were to lower its price below Country D's price, then Country L would resume its import relationship with Country S.

• This statement is not supported by the given information. The passage states that Country L decided to transfer its business to Country D because it offered the best deal available. There is no mention of Country L considering a resumption of the import relationship with Country S, regardless of the price difference.

(C) If Country L could somehow reduce the cost of producing domestic wheat by 25 percent, it wouldn't need to rely on any wheat imports.

• This statement is not directly supported by the given information. The passage does not discuss the cost of producing domestic wheat or the potential impact of reducing it. While it is possible that reducing production costs could eliminate the need for imports, there is no information to confirm this.

(D) Country S and Country D do not import or export any wheat from each other.

• This statement is not supported by the given information. The passage does not provide any details about the import/export relationship between Country S and Country D. It only states that Country L decided to switch its business from Country S to Country D due to the better deal.

(E) If Country D were to increase its price per bale of wheat by 25 percent, then a bale of wheat from Country S would once again be less expensive.

• This statement is best supported by the given information. The passage states that Country L used to import wheat from Country S because it had the cheapest price per bale available. However, when Country S raised its price by 25 percent, Country L decided to switch its business to Country D, which offered a better deal. This implies that if Country D were to increase its price by the same percentage, a bale of wheat from Country S would once again be less expensive, prompting Country L to reconsider its decision.

Therefore, the best-supported statement is (E) If Country D were to increase its price per bale of wheat by 25 percent, then a bale of wheat from Country S would once again be less expensive.

The student's argument is that Marc must have learned less about algebra last year than most other students in the class because he answered only 75% of the questions correctly on the Algebra I final exam. The student assumes that the final exam scores accurately measure a student's level of understanding.

We need to find an answer choice that weakens this argument. Let's evaluate each option:

(A) Seven students answered less than 75% of the questions correctly on the final exam in Algebra I last year.

• This option does not weaken the argument because it only tells us that there were other students who scored lower than Marc. It does not provide any information about Marc's understanding of algebra relative to the rest of the class.

(B) Marc is one of four students in the class who did not take an introductory-level algebra course offered by the school two years ago.

• This option weakens the argument because it provides an alternative explanation for Marc's lower score. If Marc did not take the introductory-level algebra course, it suggests that he may have been at a disadvantage compared to the other students who took the course. Therefore, his lower score on the final exam may not necessarily reflect his level of understanding but could be due to a lack of prior preparation.

(C) Marc is one of three students who answered exactly 75% of the questions correctly on the final exam in Algebra I last year.

• This option does not weaken the argument because it simply identifies Marc as one of three students who answered exactly 75% of the questions correctly. It does not provide any information that challenges the assumption that Marc learned less about algebra than most other students.

(D) The teacher estimated that last year's ninth-grade Algebra I final exam was roughly twice as difficult as this year's Algebra I final exam.

• This option does not weaken the argument either. While it provides information about the relative difficulty of the exams, it does not directly address Marc's level of understanding or his performance compared to other students.

(E) Only three students spent less time than Marc spent answering the questions on last year's Algebra I final exam.

• This option does not weaken the argument because it only tells us that a small number of students spent less time than Marc on the exam. It does not provide any information about Marc's level of understanding relative to the rest of the class.

After evaluating all the options, we can conclude that option (B) weakens the student's argument by providing an alternative explanation for Marc's lower score. It suggests that Marc's lack of prior exposure to an introductory-level algebra course may have impacted his performance on the final exam, rather than his understanding of algebra being inferior to most other students.

Therefore, the correct answer is (B).

The argument states that Comfort Airlines had twice as many delayed flights last year compared to the previous year, but the number of complaints about delayed flights increased three times. It also mentions that the airline made efforts to improve other aspects of its service last year. The question asks for the option that best explains the disproportionate increase in customer complaints.

Let's evaluate each option:

(A) Comfort Airlines had more flights last year than the year before.

• This option does not directly address the increase in complaints. It only states that there were more flights, which may or may not contribute to the increase in complaints.

(B) Last year a single period of unusually bad weather caused a large number of flights to be delayed.

• This option provides a plausible explanation for the increase in delayed flights and, consequently, the increase in complaints. If there was a specific period of bad weather, it could have significantly affected flight schedules and resulted in more complaints from passengers. This is a potential explanation for the disproportionate increase in complaints.

(C) Some of the improvements that Comfort Airlines made in its service were required by new government regulations.

• This option discusses the improvements made by the airline but does not directly address the increase in complaints. The fact that some improvements were mandated by regulations does not necessarily explain the increase in complaints related to flight delays.

(D) The average length of a flight delay was greater last year than it was the year before.

• This option directly addresses the increase in complaints. If the average length of a flight delay was longer last year compared to the previous year, it suggests that passengers had to endure more extended periods of waiting and frustration. This could explain the disproportionate increase in complaints about delayed flights.

(E) The average number of passengers per flight was no higher last year than the year before.

• This option does not directly address the increase in complaints. Even if the average number of passengers per flight remained the same, it does not provide a reason for the increase in complaints about flight delays.

Considering the given options, option (D) is the most logical explanation for the disproportionate increase in customer complaints. The longer average length of flight delays could have resulted in more dissatisfaction among passengers, leading to a higher number of complaints.

Therefore, the answer is (D).

(A) The incidence of new cases of NANB hepatitis is likely to go up by 10 percent:

• The passage does not provide any information about the incidence of new cases of NANB hepatitis. It only mentions the potential percentage of actual donors supplying contaminated blood, which does not directly imply an increase in new cases.

(B) Donations made by patients specifically for their own use are likely to become less frequent:

• The passage does not mention anything about donations made by patients for their own use. It focuses on blood donors and the potential contamination of blood supplies.

(C) The demand for blood from blood banks is likely to fluctuate more strongly:

• The passage does not provide any information about the potential fluctuation in demand for blood. It mainly discusses the screening tests and their impact on the supply of contaminated blood.

(D) The blood supplies available from blood banks are likely to go down:

• This is the best-supported inference based on the passage, as explained above.

(E) The number of prospective first-time donors is likely to go up by 5 percent:

• The passage does not mention anything about the number of prospective first-time donors. It only discusses the potential disqualification of donors and the contamination of blood supplies.

In summary, the best-supported inference is that the blood supplies available from blood banks are likely to go down (option D).

Roland states that 90 percent of the people in the country report knowing someone who is unemployed. Sharon counters this by pointing out that a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, meaning that 1 out of 20 workers would be unemployed. Sharon concludes that if a person knows approximately 50 workers, it is very likely that 1 or more of them will be unemployed.

To identify the assumption on which Sharon's argument relies, let's examine the options:

(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded:

• This option introduces the concept of normal levels of unemployment, but it is not necessary for Sharon's argument. Sharon's argument is based on the idea that even with normal levels of unemployment, people are likely to know someone who is unemployed. Therefore, this option is not the correct assumption.

(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population:

• This option aligns with Sharon's argument. Sharon assumes that people know a diverse group of workers and that unemployment is not limited to specific isolated segments of the population. If unemployment were concentrated in specific geographic areas, it would not be as likely for individuals to know someone who is unemployed. Therefore, this option is the correct assumption.

(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population:

• This option focuses on the specific percentage mentioned by Roland, but Sharon's argument does not rely on this exact percentage. Sharon's argument is about the likelihood of knowing someone who is unemployed, regardless of the specific percentage. Therefore, this option is not the correct assumption.

(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents:

• This option is unrelated to Sharon's argument. Whether Roland is distorting the statistics or not does not affect the logic of Sharon's argument. Therefore, this option is not the correct assumption.

(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics:

• This option introduces the concept of fear of losing one's job, which is not relevant to Sharon's argument. Sharon's argument is focused on the likelihood of knowing someone who is unemployed, not the emotional response to that knowledge. Therefore, this option is not the correct assumption.

In conclusion, the correct assumption on which Sharon's argument relies is (B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population. This assumption supports Sharon's claim that knowing 50 workers would very likely include knowing someone who is unemployed.

This question is assessing your ability to evaluate the given data and determine what additional information would be most useful in supporting the position that more motorcyclists should take motorcycle-safety courses in order to reduce serious accidents.

The given data states that 92% of motorcyclists involved in serious motorcycle accidents have never taken a motorcycle-safety course. To strengthen this position, we need to find information that addresses the gap between the percentage of motorcyclists who have taken the courses and the percentage involved in serious accidents.

(A) Whether significantly more than eight percent of motorcyclists have taken a motorcycle-safety course:

• This option directly addresses the gap between the percentage of motorcyclists who have taken the courses (less than 8%) and the percentage involved in serious accidents (92%). If significantly more than 8% of motorcyclists have taken the courses, it would support the claim that taking these courses reduces the likelihood of serious accidents.

(B) Whether it is riskier for a motorcyclist to ride with a passenger behind the rider than to ride alone:

• This option does not directly address the effectiveness of motorcycle-safety courses in reducing serious accidents. It focuses on the risk of riding with a passenger, which is unrelated to the impact of taking safety courses.

(C) Whether the different organizations that offer motorcycle-safety courses differ in the content of the courses that they offer:

• This option also does not directly address the effectiveness of motorcycle-safety courses in reducing serious accidents. It focuses on the content variation between different organizations, which may be important but does not provide support for the given position.

(D) Whether more than 92% of serious motorcycle accidents involve collisions between a motorcycle and another vehicle in motion:

• This option, although it provides information about the nature of serious motorcycle accidents, does not directly address the effectiveness of motorcycle-safety courses. It focuses on the type of accidents, rather than the impact of taking safety courses.

(E) Whether variations in the size and potential speed of a motorcycle influence the risk of a serious accident occurring:

• This option, like option (D), provides information about the risk factors for serious motorcycle accidents but does not directly address the effectiveness of motorcycle-safety courses.

In conclusion, option (A) is the most useful to determine whether significantly more than 8% of motorcyclists have taken a motorcycle-safety course. If this is the case, it would provide strong support for the position that taking these courses can reduce the occurrence of serious motorcycle accidents.

(A) This answer choice only remarks that the recyclable refuse shall not be incinerated; it does not provide sufficient grounds to conclude that this measure will ensure that the amount of residual ash will be halved in consonance with the halving of collected truckloads for incineration. Furthermore, since the number of truckloads destined for incineration are going to be halved regardless of whether or not any recyclable refuse shall be included therein, this answer choice does not provide a link between halved truckloads for incineration and the halving of residual ash; therefore, it is an incorrect answer choice.

(B) This answer choice remarks on the decrease in residual ash disposal costs due to recycling and does not touch upon the reduction of residual ash amounts in the slightest; while recycling efforts will certainly reduce the amount of refuse destined for incineration and save on incineration costs thereby, this does not signify a halving of the amount of residual ash; as it does not provide a link between halved truckloads for incineration and the halving of residual ash, it is an incorrect answer choice.

(C) This answer choice is irrelevant as we are not concerned with how much refuse is collected or how much of it is recyclable; already, the number of truckloads destined for incineration are to be halved, and this will happen irrespective of the proportion of recyclable materials. Furthermore, if the proportion of recyclable material is high, the incinerated material will be lesser; however, that does not essentially mean that the ash per unit of refuse will also be reduced; as this answer choice does not provide a link between halved truckloads for incineration and halving of residual ash, it is an incorrect answer choice.

(D) This answer choice provides a necessary condition for the desired halving of residual ash, alongside the given information that the number of truckloads collected will also be halved; if the number of truckloads to be incinerated will be halved, and the amount of residual ash for each truckload after incineration will be no more than it was the previous year, it follows logically that the amount of residual ash produced this year will be no more than half of last year’s; as this answer choice links the halving of truckloads to the halving of residual ash, it is the correct answer choice.

(E) This answer choice is irrelevant, as it states that the amount of refuse collected this year will remain the same as last year, which does not matter, as the number of truckloads to be incinerated will be halved regardless; it does not affect the final amount of refuse to be incinerated and, consequently, the amount of residual ash in the slightest; therefore, it does not address the link between halved truckloads for incineration and the halving of residual ash, and is an incorrect answer choice.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

(A) The increase in the pharmaceutical division's contribution to corporation profits could have resulted largely from the introduction of a single, important new product.

• This critique suggests that the growth in the pharmaceutical division's profits may be attributed to a specific product rather than an overall improvement in the division's performance. It challenges the idea that the division is growing stronger as a whole.

(B) In multidivisional corporations that have pharmaceutical divisions, over half of the corporation's profits usually come from the pharmaceuticals.

• This answer choice provides general information about other multidivisional corporations with pharmaceutical divisions, but it does not directly critique the evidence presented. It does not address the situation of the specific corporation being discussed.

(C) The percentage of the corporation's profits attributable to the pharmaceutical division could have increased even if that division's performance had not improved.

• This critique addresses the possibility that the increase in the pharmaceutical division's contribution to profits may not necessarily indicate an improvement in its performance. Other factors, such as a decrease in profits from other divisions, could have led to the increase in percentage without any actual improvement in the pharmaceutical division's performance.

(D) The information cited does not make it possible to determine whether the 20 percent share of profits cited was itself an improvement over the year before.

• This critique highlights the lack of information regarding the previous year's profits. Without knowing the performance of the pharmaceutical division in the previous year, it is not possible to determine whether the increase from 20 percent to 45 percent is an improvement or not.

(E) The information cited does not make it possible to compare the performance of the chemical and pharmaceutical divisions in terms of the percent of total profits attributable to each.

• This critique points out that the information provided does not allow for a direct comparison between the performance of the chemical and pharmaceutical divisions. It is not possible to determine whether the growth in the pharmaceutical division's profits is compensating for the decline in the chemical division's profits.

After analyzing the answer choices, it is evident that option (C) provides the best critique of the evidence presented. It raises doubts about whether the increase in the pharmaceutical division's contribution to profits reflects an actual improvement in its performance or if other factors influenced the change.