Test: Data Insights - 2 - GMAT MCQ

The conference organizers need 250 single rooms, and the remaining 1,000 people can be housed in 500 double rooms, so a total of 750 rooms will be needed. For meals, 50 of the 1,250 attendees declined all meals, and 200 more chose only lunches, so 1,250 – 50 – 200 = 1,000 people reserved dinner seating.

Total no. of employee the factory had in 2008 = 505 + 75 + 36 + 130 + 75 = 821. 
In 2007 the total no. employees = 500 + 80 + 35 + 132 + 74 = 821. This satisfies the given condition.

To determine which statements are justified, look at the information given in the emails.
For statement I. The wedding coordinator is not willing to extend the guest headcount deadline. Look at the bold statement in email #3,
Email from the wedding coordinator to the bride
February 12, at 11:02am
I will reach out to the pavilion to see if an extension is possible and get back to you this afternoon. We can always assume for more since the pavilion does offer a refund if any chances are made at least one week prior to the wedding.
Therefore, the wedding coordinator is willing to extend the guest count if at all possible. Thus, this statement is not justified.
For statement II. The bride does not have a specific, expected date to receive RSVPs. Look at the bold statement in email #2,
Email from the bride to the wedding coordinator
February 12, at 10:27am
We are still waiting on 40 invitations to RSVP; we gave a deadline of February 15. Is there a possibility for an extension to the 15th? Of the current 425 guests 375 have opted for the chicken dinner.
Therefore, the bride does give a deadline for the RSVPs. Thus, this statement is not justified.
For statement III. The wedding coordinator gives additional options to the bride in case the pavilion will not give an extension. Look at the bold statement in email #3,
Email from the wedding coordinator to the bride
February 12, at 11:02am
I will reach out to the pavilion to see if an extension is possible and get back to you this afternoon. We can always assume for more since the pavilion does offer a refund if any changes are made at least one week prior to the wedding.
Since the wedding coordinator gives additional options to the bride, the statement is justified. 
 

Let's say there's p pizzas => there's 3p hot dogs => there's 15p brownies

So, if we get to know any one of these values, we can calculate the rest 2 values.

Statement 1:
There are at least 10 pizzas in the restaurant
So,
that simply means number of brownies = 
Nothing conclusive. Because the number can 150 or 165 or 180 and so on.
Insufficient.
Statement 2:
There are 32 hot dogs at most in the restaurant
So,
but p can only be an integer so 
So, number of brownies = => 15p can be 150 or 135 or 120 and so on.
Again, nothing conclusive.
Hence, Insufficient.
If we club them together:
we have 
So, and gives us p=10
i.e, number of brownies = 15p =150
Hence, both statements together are sufficient.
Hence, option C

Earnings per share in August:
3,000,000 / 150,000 = 300 / 15 = 15 × 20 / 15= 20
The expected earnings in September are 5% less than August, which means the earnings will be 95% of the August earnings.
Let x be the number of outstanding shares in September.
So the earnings per share ratio in September will be:
2,850,000/x = 20
20x = 2,850,000
x = 142,500
The number of shares in August is 150,000. The number of shares in September needs to be 142,500.
150,000 – 142,500 = 7,500
The company has to buy back 7,500 shares.
The correct answer is choice (E).

Question 1 Explanation: The answer is No. This argument assumes that the percentage of people who vote in California is higher than the percentage of people who vote in the other three states put together, based on the fact that the number of people who vote is greater in California. We cannot infer anything about the percentage of people who vote based only on actual numbers of people who vote.
Question 2 Explanation: The answer is No. Zellman likely means that your vote carries “more weight” in local elections since “typically fewer people vote in local elections” according to Article 1. This is further established by Article 2, which begins with a refutation of Zellman and the idea that a vote in a local election “counts more.”
 

Say, x be the total number of students and y be the number of students scoring higher in final term.
Asked: 
St-1:
Of the students in the class, 28% scored at least 6 points higher on the final than on the midterm.
­­­­No. of students scoring atleast six points higher = 0.28x
No information of students other with 1 to 5 points higher. Thus y can't be determined.
Insufficient
St-2:
Of the students who scored higher on the final than on the midterm, 40% scored at least 6 points higher on the final.
No. of students scoring atleast six points higher = 0.4y
We do not have any info about x
Insufficient
(1) + (2)

Sufficient
 

(A) Smallest value of an order from Vendor Y for which Vendor X would be cheaper
Given the handling fees, we can assume all values will be over $250 since Vendor X is considered for larger orders. Thus, the handling fee will be $20.
To find the smallest value of an order from Vendor Y for which Vendor X would be cheaper, we need to equate the 5% discount value to the handling fee.
Thus, 5% of the item price = $20
Item price = $20 / 0.05 = $400
So, the order value from Vendor X = $400 (after discount) + $20 (handling fee) = $420
(B) Vendor X's charge for a $500 order from Vendor Y
If Vendor Y charges $500 for the order, the item price from Vendor X before the discount would be the same, i.e., $500.
After applying Vendor X's 5% bulk order discount, the price would be 95% of $500:
Item price after discount = $500 * 0.95 = $475
Since the order value is between $250 and $600, the handling fee is $20.
Hence, the total order cost from Vendor X = $475 + $20 = $495

In the solution, for part A, we found that the smallest value for which Vendor X is cheaper is a $400 order from Vendor Y since it will cost $420 from Vendor X, which is still higher than Vendor Y. For part B, a $500 order from Vendor Y would cost $495 from Vendor X after applying the discount and handling fee. Thus, the correct option that fits both scenarios is Option D.
 

(A) LANGUAGE A
average annual rate of growth of Language A native speakers = (450 - 330) / 5 = 24 million

(B) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LANGUAGE A AND LANGUAGE B
average annual rate of growth of Language A native speakers = (450 - 330) / 5 = 24 million
average annual rate of growth of Language b native speakers = (300 - 260) / 5 = 8 million
HENCE, THE DIFFERENCE = 24 million - 8 million = 16 million

Both invoices are about 1.9% higher than the price of the goods:

This suggests that the tax rate is higher than the discount rate and that the difference between the rates will be in the neighborhood of 2%. This estimate makes a systematic trial and error possible. Trying a 3% discount and 5% tax comes close but is a bit low. A discount of 5% and a tax rate of 7.25% fits the bill.

Assume:
dogs = y
cats = 2y
fishes = 6y
Total pets = y+2y+6y = 9y

Sattement1 :
The number of cats in Libby’s house is 12, i.e, 2y = 12 => y = 6
9y = 54
P(Randomly selecting 2 cats) =
Statement 2:
The total number of pets in Libby’s house is 54.
that means 9y = 54 => number of cats = 2y = 12
So, P(Randomly selecting 2 cats) = 
Hence, both of the statements seems to be sufficient.
Hence, option D

Option C
suppose, she needs x cups of flour for 1 batch of brownies and y cups of flour for 1 coffee cake
it is given that x+y = 9/2 = 4.5 [From statement 1] ..... (eq. 1)
              and 2x+3y = 11 [From statement 2] .......... ( eq. 2)
we need value of x, we can't get a specific value from a single equation. We need 2 equations for solving a 2D equation
Both statements together are sufficient.
Hence, option C

You can make a quick table to organize the data from the graph.
Year   Earnings
2006   $5 million
2007   $10 million
2008   $12 million
5 + 10 + 12/3 = 27/3 = 9
The mean earnings were $9 million per year.
The correct answer is choice (C).

I. An individual who is experienced in fitness and has taken 3 group classes can choose to pay for the individual direction membership.
At a gym there are three different paths an individual can take to obtaining membership. The first option is personal training. The second option is group fitness classes and the last option is individual direction. Members are only allowed to partake in individual direct after 5 personal training sessions and 10 group fitness classes.
Therefore, statement I. is not justified.

II. An individual who has a budget of $160 a month to spend on fitness after going through the personal training and group sessions can attend 8 classes per month.
The price of membership depends on the technique the individual chooses. Personal training costs any where between $40 and $75 per session depending on the trainer. Group fitness classes cost $20 per session and individual direction costs $15 per visit.
8 classes a month×$20=$160
Therefore, statement II. is justified.

III. Tina has completed all the necessary requirements to have an individual direction membership; Tina would make the 26th member of this type.
For personal training, there must be one trainer per individual. For group fitness classes there must be one trainer per eight individuals. For individual direction, no trainer is required however, only 25 members can part take in individual direction at a time. At this particular gym there are 12 trainers. 
Therefore, statement III. is not justified.

The capacity of cistern is 15 cubic feet.
In statement 1, let the second pipe supply water a rate of x feet per minute. The rate of the first pipe is 3x feet per minute. Thus, the statement is insufficient.
In statement 2, the pipes fill 8 cubic feet in 10 minute. Therefore, 15 cubic feet will be filled in (15 × 10)/8 = 18.75 minutes. Hence, the statement is sufficient.

E should be the option

First of all, if we divide some number by 3, we can have only 3 remainders which are 0,1,2; i.e, either the number is of the form 3k or 3k+1 or 3k+2.

Now we have to find the remainder of r+s and we are provided with 2 statements.

Statement 1: rs is divisible by 9.
r=4 s=9
rs=36
r+s=13 ; remainder 1 when divided by 3

r=3 s=6 rs=18
r+s = 9; remiander 0 when divided by 3

Multiple possibilities. Not sufficient

Statement 2: s is divisible by 3
s=3 r=1
r+s=4; remainder 1 when divided by 3

s=3 r=2
r+s=5; remainder 2 when divided by 3

Again multiple possibilities. Not sufficient

If both statements are clubbed together:
rs is divisible by 9 and s is of the form 3k
r=3, s=6, rs=18=9*2, r+s=9; remainder 0

r=4, s=18, rs=72=9*8, r+s=22; remainder 1

So again doesn't give specific answer.
Not sufficient

So Neither of them individually or together is sufficient.

Hence, option E should be correct

The line of best fit suggests that a 1% increase in the number of men who read the daily paper corresponds to a ________ in the number of women who read the daily paper.
The slope of the line of best fit is slightly more than 1. A positive slope represents a positive association, so as the percent of men who read the daily paper increases, the percent of women who do so increases as well. A slope of 1.1 indicates that each 1% increase in the percent of men will correspond to an increase of 1.1% of women.
Answer: C

Based upon these data, in a market in which approximately 40% of men read the daily paper, we would expect about ________ of women to read the daily paper.
Calculation using the equation of the line is possible, but reading the value directly from the line will allow a quicker estimate. From 40% on the horizontal axis, trace up to the line and then horizontally back to the vertical axis to a value between 20% and 30%. If you prefer to calculate, 1.1352 × 40% – 17.692% = 45.408% – 17.692% = 27.716%. Of the answer choices, the closest value is 25%.
Answer: C
 

For question 1, looking at the distances/deviation of a point from the best fit line, we see that after 60%, the distance from the best fit line is very less, which means it is predicting most accurately.
Final answer for Q1 is 60%.

For question 2, we can see portugal has higher value for x axis but smaller value for y axis. One can also imagine a y=x line and try to visualize the point that is farthest from it.

2x + 1 > 0
In statement 1, a is an integer, when x = -2, 2x + 1 = -3 < 0. When x = 2, 2x + 1 = 5 > 0, hence the statement is not sufficient.
In statement 2, |x| < 1.5 implies that -1.5 < x < 1.5.
When x = 1.4, 2x + 1 = 3.8 > 0. When x = -1.4, 2x + 1 = -1.8 < 0.
Hence, the statement is not sufficient.
Combining the two statements, we have, x, an integer and -1.5 < x < 1.5, considering the more strict condition, -1.5 < x < 1.5, we find that 2x + 1 < 0, when x = -1.4 and 2x + 1 > 0 when x = 1.4.
Therefore, Statements (1) and (2) TOGETHER are NOT sufficient.

We need comparison b/w tie and belt original price to deduce which one greater after discount
(1) discount rate of tie doesn't help us in finding original price. Hence insufficient
(2) discount rate of belt doesn't help us in finding original price. Hence insufficient

(1)+(2) together don't tell us anything about original prices. Hence insufficient