Executive Assessment Mock Test - 4 - GMAT MCQ

Start with: “has more than 40% of all people over 20 years old in tertiary programs” – these are just three countries: Greece, Belgium, and France. All three of them spend under $40/student. Therefore, no country meets the combined criteria. Therefore, the answer is Yes.

Start with: “has less than 20% of all people over 20 year old in tertiary programs.” These are countries that are not represented in the table, because they are below Slovakia in their percentage of all people over 20 years old in tertiary programs. We don’t have any information about where those countries fall, but clearly some of them would have to occupy ranks above 51stplace-ranked Sweden in spending per student. Sweden spends $53.50/student, so 50 countries not on the table spend more than that, and if they are not on the table, they all rank below Slovakia in their percentage of all people over 20 years old in tertiary programs. We actually can’t give a definitive answer, but we certainly do not have enough information to answer Yes to the question. Because the information is unclear, the answer is No.

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.

In 2007, A made something just above $90K, say $93K. In 2008, A made something just above $960K, say $63K. For approximation purposes, let’s just round these to $90K and $60K respectively. If the revenues went from $90K in 2007 to $60K in 2008, that’s a drop of $30K, which is one-third of the starting value $90K. One-third as a percent is 33.3%, so the percentage decrease is going to be something very close to 33.3% percent. The only close answer choice is 32.2%.

There are 14 schools in one of the two Venn circles – those are the schools either with dedicated computer labs or a computer in every classroom. Of those schools, 6 are public: the four red squares in the left Venn circle, and the two in the right Venn circle. 6/14*100 = 42.9%.

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 classroom . 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.

Insect Species X: Choice A, 450

First, note that, if the populations are to become equal in four years, at a 10% and a 15% rate of decrease, respectively, then the two populations are not currently equal. Additionally, the current population of Insect Species Y must be more than the current population of Insect Species X, in order for their totals to converge, at these independent rates of decrease, in four years. Therefore, the current population of Insect Species X cannot be 625, and the current population of Insect Species Y cannot be 450.
The problem requires working with two unknowns: the current population of Insect Species X and the current population of Insect Species Y. Therefore, Plug In The Answers to determine which will satisfy the conditions of the question. To approach the problem most efficiently, recognize that a 10% decrease is the same as taking 90% of the original number. Suppose that the current population of Insect Species X is 500. A 10% decrease from 450 is equivalent to 90% of 500, or (.9)(450), which is 405. That would be the decrease for one year. To find the decrease for the next year, you would need to begin with the adjusted population and decrease from there: a 10% decrease from 405 is equivalent to (.9)(405), which is 364.5. So, finding the decrease for two subsequent years from a current population of 450 is equivalent to calculating (.9)(.9)(450) = 364.5. Similarly, finding the decrease for four subsequent years at a 10% rate from a current population of 450 is equivalent to calculating (.9)(.9)(.9)(.9)(450) = (.6561)(450) = 295.245. So, to find the decreased population of Insect Species X for four years at a 10% rate, you would calculate (.6561)(current population X).
A 15% decrease is the same as taking 85% of the original number, so to find the decreased population of Insect Species Y for four years at a 15% rate, you would calculate (.85)(.85)(.85)(.85)(current population Y), or approximately (.522)(current population Y).
To determine what two current populations will be equal (rounded to the nearest million) in four years, you are looking for values that satisfy the equation (0.6561)(current population X) = (0.522)(current population Y). Now you can simply calculate with each value provided to see what the future populations would be:

Rounded to the nearest million, the values that satisfy the equation (0.6561) (current population X) = (0.522)(current population Y) are 450 for the current population of Insect Species X and 565 for the current population of Insect Species Y, which would both decrease to approximately 295 million, at their independent rates of decrease, in four years.

This question requires two steps to solve: first, which year had the lowest total per capita consumption of both ice cream and cheese, and second, what was the ratio of ice cream consumption to cheese consumption in that year?

By examining the data points for particular years, you can identify that in 1989, the total consumption of ice cream and cheese was less than 53 pounds (because the ice cream consumption was less than 29 pounds, and the cheese consumption was less than 24 pounds.) Testing other years, such as 1990, confirms that 1989 had the lowest total consumption. (In 1990, the total consumption was approximately 53 pounds, based on the data points of approximately 28.5 pounds of ice cream and 24.5 pounds of cheese.)

To calculate the ratio of per capita ice cream consumption to per capita cheese consumption for 1989, divide the data point for ice cream (approximately 29) by the data point for cheese (approximately 24) for a ratio of approximately 1.2 (or, in fractional terms, 6/5).

The regression line for ice cream slopes down, while the line for cheese slopes up; per capita ice cream consumption is reducing over time, while per capita cheese consumption is increasing over time. Thus, the slope of the ice cream line is negative, and is less than the slope of the cheese line, which is positive.

The basic argument of the author is that the buccaneers/pirates have only been presented in a very limited manner through books and press. (A) follows the best from this and is the correct answer.
(B) These sources have been called the ‘traditional sources’—however, there were other narratives also available.
(C) The author mentions the overlooking of the historical connection between the two and not it being ‘rewritten’.
(D) The author has only called for looking into the policies being followed by the two governments—their stand is not mentioned.
(E) The author is merely pondering on the efficacy of such a notion— he is not agreeing with it.

The author has stressed his concern about historians/authors ignoring a large amount of information about buccaneers and basing their writings/accounts only on very limited sources of information. He clearly supports writing an alternative account of the lives of the buccaneers using these hitherto ignored sources of information. (C) states this best and is the correct answer.
(A) This has been cited more as an example to prove the author’s main point.
(B) The author names them as ‘traditional sources’ of information which he considers ‘limited’ in scope.
(D) The author never praises the press anywhere in the passage.
(E) The Jesuits are again cited just as examples.

In the passage, it is mentioned that the Guinness World Records website contains facts such as the most powerful combustion engine and the world's longest train. However, it also mentions that the record of the heaviest train to be pulled with a beard is found on the website, indicating that the record of the world's heaviest train is also included.

The researchers' conclusion is: "habitual smoking causes increased difficulties in concentrating"

The group of researchers confuses correlation with causation. In other words, the group concludes that a correlation between smoking and an inability to concentrate implies that smoking causes an inability to concentrate. Perhaps it is the other way around and an inability to concentrate causes individuals to become distracted and take up smoking. Evidence to support this counter theory would weaken the researchers' conclusion.

1. This answer strengthens (not weakens) the original argument as it provides an explanation for how habitual smoking increases difficulties in concentrating after becoming hooked.
2. The answer deals only with some ADD non-smokers and some smokers so it does not provide any solid evidence and justification to weaken or reject the original argument. Further, it is not logical to compare the concentration ability of individuals with an attention deficit condition to other individuals who do not have an attention deficit condition.
3. The incarceration rate is irrelevant in determining the relationship between concentration and smoking. Whether smokers are incarcerated at higher or lower rates does not enable us to strengthen or weaken the causal relationship between smoking and concentration proposed in the original argument.
4. This strengthens (not weakens) the original argument as it intensifies the causal relationship between smoking and subsequent difficulties concentrating.
5. This additional study pinpoints that individuals with preexisting (or already established) concentration difficulties subsequently became addicted to smoking. This pinpoints that the smoking could not have caused the attention and concentration difficulties (as these difficulties already existed prior to becoming addicted).

The political commentator's argument is: "tax cuts will not help the country escape from its current economic troubles." The commentator's evidence for this is the failure of the past administration's tax cuts to prevent the economic recession.

1. This answer identifies that the argument illogically compares apples and oranges (i.e., it compares entirely different types of tax cuts). It is not reasonable to assume that capital gains tax cuts for the ultra-rich will have the same effect as cuts on salary taxes.
2. This answer does not weaken the political commentator's argument since the tax cuts referred to occurred under such radically different circumstances. Further, this answer simply states that tax cuts "helped stem" a recession while the commentator states that tax cuts will "help the country escape" from a recession. Simply helping stem (or slow down) a recession is considerably different (and less impressive) than actually turning around an entire economy in recession.
3. This answer notes that a piece of legislation is widely considered essential to escaping the current recession. However, it does not break down what in the legislation is considered essential (is it tax cuts alone, in which case the commentator's argument is undermined—or is it government spending alone, in which case the commentator's argument is strengthened—or is it both). Without more information, it is impossible to ascertain whether the economists feel the tax cuts currently being proposed will be simulative, anti-simulative, or neither.
4. The political commentator's argument pertains to the tax cuts ability to "help the country escape from its current economic troubles" not the tax cut's effect on the government deficit. Consequently, the effect on the deficit has no bearing on the argument about tax cuts and economic recovery.
5. This answer explicitly states that the campaign contained "many deceptive" political attacks and arguments. Consequently, the credibility of the governor's claim is severely questioned. Further, even if the governor's comments were true, we cannot conclude that the correlation between his state's prosperity and his tax proposals also has a causal relationship (i.e., we cannot conclude that the governor's philosophy of tax cuts caused the state to be prosperous). In other words, correlation does not imply causation. Further, the macroeconomic dynamics of a state are different than the macroeconomic dynamics of a country.

The paradox: After a government recall of some peanut butter, shoppers indicated that they would not change their peanut butter purchasing habits. However, same-store-sales of peanut butter subsequently fell dramatically.

Since consumers did not publicly signal any intention to change their behavior, another explanation must exist. Multiple possible explanations exist: the stores voluntarily removed peanut butter, subsequent and more damaging information about peanut butter contamination became public, or consumers responded to the survey in a biased manner (e.g., denying that they will change their purchasing habits so as to appear as if they never fell for purchasing contaminated products).

1. This answer heightens the paradox by making the subsequent fall in sales of peanut butter even more unexplainable since a price cut would have stimulated sales (not provided an explanation for their decline).
2. This answer identifies a correct explanation for the paradox. With stores fearful about lawsuits, they removed peanut butter and consequently "same-store sales to customers fell."
3. Although a tabloid is a much less respected source than a leading newspaper, the fact still remains that the article appeared in a leading newspaper. Further, the source of the news does not explain the discrepancy between individuals' stated intent to continue purchasing peanut butter and the subsequent poor sales figures. If the tabloid as a source were a problem, it would only further increase the paradox over why sales declined (why would consumers seemingly base their decisions upon a tabloid).
4. When the individuals took the survey where they stated their intent to continue purchasing peanut butter, they knew about the op-ed piece as it appeared "days before the newspaper conducted its survey." Consequently, the op-ed cannot explain individuals' switch in behavior (i.e., intending to purchase peanut butter but then deciding not to).
5. The original argument notes that "the country's peanut butter manufacturers" (i.e., every manufacturer accounted for—not limited to the specific type of peanut butter recalled) reported a drop in sales. Although consumers' intention to change the type of jelly and bread they purchased could imply that consumers would change the type of peanut butter they purchased, it does not explain why sales would virtually stop altogether. There is a difference between changing the type of jelly purchased (and by correlation, the type of peanut butter purchased) and stopping purchasing jelly altogether (and by correlation, stopping purchasing peanut butter altogether).

There are three main issues being tested in this question.

(1) The phrase their home is redundant as the word their could be eliminated

(2) The phrase other tribal groups historically experienced (with its verb in the simple past tense) must be replaced with a phrase that uses the past perfect tense (i.e., historically had experienced). The past perfect tense must be used since we are dealing with two actions in the past where one action came before another (i.e., the historic ability to find food predated the decision to move). The word historically makes it clear that the ability to find food referred to the period of time before the individuals decided to move in 2007.

(3) The word less cannot be used with difficulties since difficulties can be counted and the proper word for countable items is fewer

1. the word their is redundant; the word less should be replaced by the word fewer; the simple past tense (experienced) should be replaced by the past perfect tense (had experienced)
2. the simple past tense (experienced) should be replaced by the past perfect tense (had experienced)
3. the word their is redundant; the simple past tense (experienced) should be replaced by the past perfect tense (had experienced)
4. many indigenous people...left home not in search of other tribal groups (as this option incorrectly states), but for land where other tribal groups historically had experienced fewer difficulties finding food
5. the unnecessary word their is properly eliminated; the past perfect tense is correctly used; the word fewer is used with countable items

There are two main problems with the original sentence.

(1) The subject of this sentence (financial problems) is plural and does not agree with the verb (ranks), which is singular. Do not be thrown off by the appositive between the subject and verb that is designed to confuse you.

(2) The phrase rank as one of the high causes is not idiomatically correct. Instead, items rank as one of the leading causes.

1. The subject (which is plural) and verb (which is singular) do not agree; ranks as one of the high causes is awkward and unidiomatic
2. This sentence correctly uses a plural verb with its plural subject; the concise and idiomatically correct phrase rank as one of the leading causes is used
3. The phrase rank as one of the most high causes is awkward, unidiomatic, and redundant (the words most and high convey the same idea)
4. The subject (which is plural) and verb (which is singular) do not agree
5. The phrase rank as one of the most leading causes is awkward, unidiomatic, and redundant (the words most and leading convey the same idea)

There are two main problems with the original sentence:

(1) The government authorities urged citizens to do three things: remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe. Consequently, these three requests from the government need to be parallel. In this case, each command should be in the infinitive form (e.g., to remain, to report, and to take). The original sentence wrongly constructs the phrase taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe such that it modifies the two previous actions. Instead, this phrase should reflect the fact that taking actions... is a third action that the government is urging citizens to take. In short, the three actions that the government is urging are not parallel and they should be.

(2) taking actions necessary... illogically modifies the command to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior because these two actions would not speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe. In other words, it does not make sense that remaining vigilant and reporting suspicious behavior (two actions that would occur before an attack) would be modified such that these are actions that speed up the recovery from an attack.

1. The three actions that the government urged are not parallel (i.e., to remain is not parallel with taking); the word necessary is not needed
2. The three actions that the government urged are not parallel (i.e., to remain is not parallel with reporting and take)
3. The three actions that the government urged are not parallel (i.e., to remain is not parallel with reporting and taking); the word necessary is not needed
4. The sentence is correctly constructed as the three actions that the government urged are parallel; the un-needed word necessary is omitted
5. The meaning of the original sentence is distorted as this sentence indicates that the government asked citizens to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior (a single command) while the original sentence separated the command to remain vigilant and the command to report suspicious behavior; the three actions that the government urged are not parallel

Find the value of each expression to determme if it is positive.
I. -3 - (-5) = -3 + 5 = 2, which is positive.
II. (-3)(-5) = 15, which is positive.
III. -5 -(-3) = -5 + 3 = -2,
which is not
positive.

The correct answer is D.

Write an equation for the given information and solve for x.

The grocer has 400 pounds of coffee in stock, of which (400)(20%) = 80 pounds is decaffeinated coffee. Therefore, if the grocer buys 100 pounds of coffee, of which (100)(60%) = 60 pounds is decaffeinated coffee, then the percent of the grocer’s stock of coffee that is decaffeinated would be
80 + 60 / 400 + 100 = 140 / 500
= 28/100
= 28%

The Correct answer is A

The 18-wheel truck has 2 wheels on its front axle and 4 wheels on each of its other axles, and so if A represents the number of axles on the truck in addition to the front axle,
then 2 + 4A = 18, from which it follows that AA = 16 and A - 4.
Therefore, the total number of axles on the truck is 1 +A  = 1 + 4 = 5.
Then, using T = 1.50 + 0.5Q(x - 2), where x is the number of axles on the truck and x = 5, it follows that T= 1.50 + 0.50(5 -2) = 1.50 + 1.50 - 3.00.
Therefore, the toll for the truck is $3.00.
The correct answer is B.

Given the expression x² - 10x + 16, a table of values can be created for the corresponding fonction f(x) = x² - 10x + 16 and the graph in the standard (x,y) coordinate plane can be sketched by plotting selected points:

It is clear from both the table of values and the sketch of the graph that as the value of x increases from -4 to 4, the values of x² -10x + 16 decrease.
Therefore, the value of x² -10x +16 is greatest when x = -4.

Knowing that statement 1, x + y = 12, is true is not enough to determine the value of x³ + y³.
Also statement 2, x − y = 8, is not enough to determine the values of x3 + y³.
Strategy 5 tells you to consider statements 1 and 2 together.
When you know both x + y = 12 and x − y = 8, you can determine that x = 10 and y = 2.
Thus, the value of x³ + y³ is 1,008.
The answer to the problem is C.

For statement 1, if 1/2(x + y) = w, then x + y = 2w and w + x + y = 3w,
so the average of w, x, and y is 3w ÷ 3 = w and z = w.
Thus, statement 1 is sufficient. Using strategy 2, you need to check statement 2 alone to determine if the answer is A or D.
For statement 2, if w = x = y, then awn+d wx + y = 3w and (w + x + y) ÷ 3 = 3w ÷ 3 = w.
Thus, w is the average = z, so statement 2 is sufficient.
Since each statement is sufficient alone, the answer is D.

D For statement 1, if the perimeter of the square is 28, then 45 = 28 and 5 = 7.
The area of a square is s², so s² = 7² = 49.
Thus, statement 1 is sufficient. Using strategy 2, you need to see if statement 2 alone is sufficient.
The diagonal forms an isosceles right triangle with two of the sides of the square.
If the diagonal is7√2, then s² + s² = (7√2)2 and 2s² = 98. So s² = 49.
Thus, statement 2 is sufficient.
Since each statement alone is sufficient, the answer is D.

As stated in the problem, if the ratio of x : y : z = 1:2:3, then y = 2x and z = 3x.
Thus, x + y + z = 6x. For statement 1,
if x + z = 16, then x + 3x = 16, and x = 4. So x + y + z = 6x = 6(4) = 24.
Thus, statement 1 is sufficient. From strategy 2, you know to check each statement.
Statement 2 does not provide any additional information.
Since the ratio is 1 : 2 : 3, you can already conclude that x < y < z.
Thus, statement 2 is not sufficient alone.
Since only statement 1 yielded a result for the question, A is the correct answer for this question.

Evaluate Statement (1) ALONE
Statement 1: Cindy, the wife of Bill's only brother Chris does not have any siblings.
We know that Cindy has no siblings and she is the wife of Bill's only brother Chris. So, this statement has helped us establish the relation between Cindy and Bill. However, this statement does not provide any information about Betty and is hence not sufficient to answer the question.

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

Evaluate Statement (2) ALONE
Statement 2: Betty is Cindy's brother in law's wife.
We know that Betty is Cindy's brother in law's wife. This statement establishes a relation between Cindy and Betty. This does not answer the question of how Bill is related to either Cindy or Betty.

Statement 2 ALONE is not sufficient. Eliminate choice B.

Evaluate the statements together
Statement 1: Cindy, the wife of Bill's only brother Chris does not have any siblings.
Statement 2: Betty is Cindy's brother in law's wife.
We combine the two statements, we know that Bill and Cindy are related to each other through Chris, who is the only brother of Bill and that Cindy is Betty's brother in law's wife.
Cindy does not have any siblings and hence her brother in law has to necessarily be her husband's sibling. As Chris is the only brother of Bill, Cindy's brother in law has to be Bill and Betty is his wife.

Statements TOGETHER are sufficient.

Choice C is the answer.

Evaluate Statement (1) ALONE: y³ is an integer
We know that y³ is an integer.
However, that does not necessarily mean that y is an integer.
Let us say, y³ = 2, then y is not an integer.
However, if y³ = 8, then y = 2 and is an integer.

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

Evaluate Statement (2) ALONE: 3y is an integer
We know that 3y is an integer.
Let us say 3y = 2, then y is not an integer.
However, if 3y = 3, then y will be an integer.

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

Evaluate Statements (1) & (2) Together: y³ is an integer and 3y is an integer
Only for integer values of y, will both y3 and 3y be integers simultaneously.
Why? If 3y is an integer and y is not an integer, y3 will not be an integer.

Statements TOGETHER are sufficient. Choice C is the answer.