Executive Assessment Mock Test - 6 - GMAT MCQ

The fi rs t inference is not supported by the information in the three sources. The research associate does not evaluate the advertising campaign as a whole in E-mail 2.

The graph shows that returns from Internet advertising were strongest during 3^rd quarter 2010. To increase total advertising returns, the company might expand its Internet advertising during this quarter in order to capitalize on the potential for additional gains.

In E-mail 2, the research associate explains that the company typically does not repeat campaigns in media that return less than 20 percent in any quarter. Radio advertising returned less than 20 percent in every quarter of 2010, so based on the company’s practices, the radio campaign should be discontinued.

No 1-year CDs qualify for bonuses, so this $11,000 CD earns an interest rate of 2.2%. Use your calculator. 2.2% of $11,000 is (0.022 × 11,000) $242. Therefore this 1-year CD does not earn at least $250.

All 5-year CDs qualify for a 0.1% bonus, so this $9,500 CD will earn 2.6% interest in its first year. Use your calculator. 2.6% of $9,500 is $247, so this CD does not earn at least $250 in its first year.

All 10-year CDs qualify for a 0.1% bonus, so this $9,500 CD will earn a 2.9% interest rate in its first year. Use your calculator. 2.9% of the $9,500 is $275.50. So this CD does earn more than $250 in its first year.

The correct answer is $90,000 per year for Johnston Booksellers and $20,000 per year for Trevor Books.

If Johnston Booksellers increases its sales revenue by $90,000 per year, in four years it will earn $410,000 in annual revenue. If Trevor Books decreases its sales revenue by $20,000 per year, in four years it will also earn $410,000 in annual revenue. After the fourth year, Johnston Booksellers will generate more sales revenue each year than Trevor Books.

To determine which department had the greatest increase in profit per employee, calculate the profit per employee for each department in both years and then find the increase.

Step 1: Calculate profit per employee in 2023

• Department X: 5 / 50 = 0.1 $M per employee
• Department Y: 3 / 30 = 0.1 $M per employee
• Department Z: 2 / 20 = 0.1 $M per employee

Step 2: Calculate profit per employee in 2024

• Department X: 5.5 / 50 = 0.11 $M per employee
• Department Y: 3.6 / 30 = 0.12 $M per employee
• Department Z: 2.2 / 20 = 0.11 $M per employee

Step 3: Calculate the increase in profit per employee

• Department X: 0.11 - 0.1 = 0.01 $M
• Department Y: 0.12 - 0.1 = 0.02 $M
• Department Z: 0.11 - 0.1 = 0.01 $M

Conclusion: Department Y had the greatest increase in profit per employee, with an increase of 0.02 $M, compared to 0.01 $M for both Departments X and Z.

Calculate the cost per unit for each factory in January and February, then find the decrease.

• Factory X:
  • January: 100500=0.2 $K/unit \frac{100}{500} = 0.2 \, \$K/\text{unit} 500100​=0.2$K/unit (or $200/unit)
  • February: 105550≈0.1909 $K/unit \frac{105}{550} \approx 0.1909 \, \$K/\text{unit} 550105​≈0.1909$K/unit (or $190.91/unit)
  • Decrease: 0.2−0.1909=0.0091 $K/unit 0.2 - 0.1909 = 0.0091 \, \$K/\text{unit} 0.2−0.1909=0.0091$K/unit (or $9.09/unit)
• Factory Y:
  • January: 120600=0.2 $K/unit \frac{120}{600} = 0.2 \, \$K/\text{unit} 600120​=0.2$K/unit (or $200/unit)
  • February: 125650≈0.1923 $K/unit \frac{125}{650} \approx 0.1923 \, \$K/\text{unit} 650125​≈0.1923$K/unit (or $192.31/unit)
  • Decrease: 0.2−0.1923=0.0077 $K/unit 0.2 - 0.1923 = 0.0077 \, \$K/\text{unit} 0.2−0.1923=0.0077$K/unit (or $7.69/unit)

Conclusion: Factory X had a larger decrease ($9.09/unit vs. $7.69/unit).

The portion of text that is of interest is: "In addition, fifteen students at a state university in North Carolina faced charges in court for underage drinking because of photos that appeared on Facebook."

1. The fact that authorities pressed charges "in court" "because of" photos that appeared online strongly implies that these photos were the evidence the police needed and could present in court.
2. In the last paragraph, the passage states that the opposite is true.
3. The passage never even approaches discussing this topic.
4. The passage never discusses the government's ability to view restricted data. In the case of students in North Carolina, there is no mention that students tried to restrict access to the photos (and the context lends itself to assuming that the students did not take adequate measures to restrict their photos).
5. The passage never speaks of taking precautions such that "no substantial risk" exists. The third piece of advice in the last paragraph is that users not post "blatantly offensive" information under any conditions and the last sentence of the passage speaks of arriving at the place where you do not experience "some [not all] of the damaging unintended consequences."

1. The passage mentions this. "regularly search for potentially harmful information about yourself that may have been posted by mistake or by a disgruntled former associate."
2. The passage mentions this. "a college in Boston’s Back Bay expelled its student Government Association President for joining a Facebook group highly critical of a campus police sergeant."
3. The passage mentions this. "In addition, fifteen students at a state university in North Carolina faced charges in court for underage drinking because of photos that appeared on Facebook."
4. The passage mentions this. "employers who check on prospective employees...companies recruiting on college campuses use search engines and social networking websites such as MySpace, Xanga, and Facebook to conduct background checks."
5. The passage never mentions this.

The following is a rough outline of the passage.
Paragraph 1: Introduction & Discuss 1st Unintended Use of Online Information
Paragraph 2: Discuss 2nd Unintended Use of Online Information
Paragraph 3: Discuss 3rd Unintended Use of Online Information
Paragraph 4: Discuss Ways to Protect Against Unintended Uses & Conclusion

1. The fourth paragraph offers no examples and it does not support previous assertions. Instead, it offers suggestions to combat previous examples.
2. The fourth paragraph provides three suggestions to ameliorate the three previously mentioned problems.
3. The fourth paragraph does not summarize the previous points, but offers three additional pieces of advice to combat (not summarize) previously mentioned threats.
4. The fourth paragraph offers ways to protect against the examples discussed earlier--not an alternative point of view or interpretation.
5. The preceding paragraphs make no conflicting claims and the fourth paragraph does not attempt to reconcile claims.

The first, second, and third paragraphs are devoted to explaining unintended uses of information that harm users of the e-community (i.e., employers can monitor employees who maintain a blog, employers who check on prospective employees, and college administrators who monitor the Internet—especially Facebook—for student misconduct). The final paragraph is devoted to explaining three steps that users can take to prevent unintended uses of online information.

1. The article provided little information about the growth of the digital world
2. This answer mirrors the format of the passage (first, second, and third paragraphs discuss risks while the fourth discusses ways to protect yourself)
3. The article makes virtually no mention of the pros of participating in the digital world
4. The article mentions steps users of these websites can take, but never mentions steps the websites can take
5. Although the article mentions some potential unintended uses of information, this answer does not account for the last paragraph of the passage (which plays an important role in the passage)

The conclusion of the commentator's argument is: "It is essential that the government loosen its control on the media."

To see this, consider the points that the author makes:
(1) political and journalistic freedom are essential for democracy
(2) society is strengthened by many views being expressed
(3) our government stifles free speech
(4) government must loosen speech controls
(5) loosening control of the media leads to long-term strength

Notice that the logical progression of the argument is as follows:
(2) -> (1) -> (3) -> (5) -> (4)

To see the relationship between premises and conclusion, notice how awkward the argument would become if a point such as 1, 2, or 3 were to be the conclusion.
It makes no sense to say: since "government must loosen speech controls," therefore "political and journalistic freedom are essential for democracy."
Rather, it makes sense the other way around:
Since "political and journalistic freedom are essential for democracy," therefore "government must loosen speech controls."

Some test-takers believe that the conclusion is the last sentence of the paragraph. However, this is incorrect since, in this argument, the last sentence serves as a premise to the conclusion. To see this, try to allow the second to last sentence to serve as a premise to the last sentence and it should be clear that this is not the way the sentences are functioning in the argument.

A. Although this statement is true, it is a premise not a conclusion. It is because the government is exercising too much control that "it is essential that the government loosen its control on the media."
B. This is a paraphrase of the conclusion. Every other sentence or major idea in the argument serves as a premise to this statement, which is the conclusion or main point of the author's argument.
C. This mirrors the first sentence of the paragraph. However, it functions as a premise not as a conclusion. It is because democracy requires a free press that "it is essential that the government loosen its control on the media."
D. Although this is similar to the last sentence of the paragraph, it is not the conclusion. The line of reasoning in the paragraph is:
democracy --> long term health --> government must open press
The reasoning is NOT:
government must open press --> democracy --> long term health (it makes no sense to say that since the government must open the press, therefore we will have long term health)
Moreover, the last sentence deals with the health of the country, not the strength of the government.
E. Although this is true, it is not the main thrust of the argument. The author is not trying to make this point. Instead, he is granting that this is true and then trying to argue that the government needs to open the press.

The school authorities argue that the new track "entirely" caused the reduction in "complaints" about shin splints. There are two important points about this argument.

(1) The argument of the school administrators is based upon a reduction in the number of complaints about shin splints, which is not the same as a reduction in the number of actual instances. It is entirely possible that students complain about shin splints and yet actually have other problems.

(2) The argument of the school administrators established a causal relationship (i.e., the new track caused the reduction). This is a much more assertive and broad claim than simply noticing that the two are correlated (i.e., occurred together).

A. The argument made by West County High School officials is based upon the fact that "the number of students who complained about shin splints dropped significantly." This answer would weaken an argument that dealt with the number of diagnosed instances of shin splints. However, the school administrators make their argument only because of a reduction in the number of "claims."
B. This answer significantly strengthens the argument of the high school administrators by noting that other schools experienced a link between a new track and a decrease in claims about shin splints.
C. This answer calls into question the school's assertion that the new track was "entirely" responsible for the reduction in claims of shin splints. The answer does this through providing an alternative and viable (but not necessarily competing) explanation of the reduction in claims of shin splints.
D. The original argument pertains to complaints about shin splints in particular (not the number of students who "complained of pain while running"). This answer confuses complaints in general with complaints about shin splints in particular.
E. This answer strengthens the school officials' claim instead of weakening it as it provides more evidence that the new track helped decrease complaints of shin splints.

There are three issues in this sentence.

(1) The sentence is not concise.

(2) The sentence unnecessarily uses passive voice and should use active voice.

(3) The sentence unnecessarily inserts space between the subject and verb, which makes understanding the sentence more difficult.

A. the sentence could be made more direct by saying X will cost Treasury Y instead of saying the extra cost to Treasury in X is Y
B. the phrase is going to be well over is wordy as going and to be convey the same idea
C. the phrase well over an extra 50 basis points per year awkwardly modifies the higher interest rates and breaks the flow of the sentence
D. the sentence is concise and uses active voice
E. the sentence unnecessarily uses passive voice

There are two major problems with this sentence.

(1) The subject (cost, which is singular) and verb (are, which is plural) do not agree. Since multiple costs are being discussed and the verb, which appears outside the underlined part of the sentence, is plural, the subject needs to be plural as well.

(2) Two parallel parts of the sentence are not parallel. associated with...and from is not a parallel phrase. Since from occurs outside the underlined part of the sentence, associated with should be replaced by arising from. With this change, the sentence will be parallel: costs arising from x...and from y.

A. The subject (cost, which is singular) does not agree with the verb (are, which is plural); the phrase associated with ... from is not parallel
B. The costs associated from is awkward and not idiomatically correct
C. The phrase associated with ... from is not parallel
D. The subject (cost, which is singular) does not agree with the verb (are, which is plural)
E. The subject (costs, which is plural) correctly agrees with the verb (are, which is plural); the phrase arising from maintaining ... and from continuously upgrading is parallel

This sentence is built around the comparative idiom just as x, so y. As with any other comparative idiom, the two parts being compared (i.e., x and y) must be grammatically parallel.

In the original sentence, x (listening to Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous fireside chats) is not parallel to y (Abraham Lincoln's famous Second Inaugural Address). These two elements can be made parallel by changing y to reading Abraham Lincoln's famous Second Inaugural Address. Notice the parallelism with the new paragraph structure:
listening to Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous fireside chats
reading Abraham Lincoln's famous Second Inaugural Address

The sentence could be made more parallel by re-writing the immense strife and challenge America faced in the post-Civil War era to match the format of the non-underlined portion (the 1930s, an era...). In other words, for these two sections to be parallel, the time period should come first followed by a description of that time period. Notice the parallelism with the new paragraph structure:
the 1930s, an era marked by incredible domestic economic distress
the post-Civil War era, a time of immense domestic challenge and strife.

A. The idiom just as x, so y does not compare parallel elements; the description of the 1930s is not parallel to the description of post-Civil War America
B. The idiom just as x, so y is broken as the word so is omitted; parallel elements are not compared in that listening to Franklin D. Roosevelt's famous fireside chats is compared to Abraham Lincoln's famous Second Inaugural Address;
C. The idiom just as x, so y is broken as the word so is omitted
D. The idiom just as x, so y is properly maintained; parallel elements are compared in both x (listening...) and y (reading...) and in the description of the 1930s (domestic economic distress) and the post-Civil War era (domestic challenge and strife)
E. The description of the 1930s is not parallel to the description of post-Civil War America

The verb claims should be followed by one of two patterns: (1) that followed by a subordinate clause (2) claims followed by an infinitive (set apart by commas).

A. claims is correctly followed by that and a subordinate clause set apart by commas
B. the phrase claims of the ability, ..., of returning is neither grammatical nor idiomatic
C. the phrase claims of being able to return, ..., the investment is neither grammatical nor idiomatic
D. the phrase to be...able to return should not be split up as it creates an awkward construction; to be able to return can be made concise by removing to be able
E. the phrase returning the investment bank back is redundant as the words returning and back convey the same idea; the phrase he is capable of can be shortened to the phrase he can

The vendor’s gross profit on the sale of the shirts is equal to the total revenue from the shirts that were sold minus the total cost for all of the shirts. The total cost for all of the shirts is equal to the number of shirts the vendor purchased multiplied by the price paid by the vendor for each shirt: 1,000 x $5 = $5,000. The total revenue from the shirts that were sold is equal to the total revenue from the 600 shirts sold for $12 each plus the total revenue from the 300 shirts that were sold for $4 each: 600 x $12 + 300 x $4 - $7,200 + $1,200 - $8,400. The gross profit is therefore $8,400 - $5,000 = $3,400.
The correct answer is E.

Let number of plants ordered be: n

3n + 0.05(3n) + 6.95 = 69.95

1.05 (3n) = 69.95 - 6.95 = 63

n = 63 / (3 x 1.05) = 20

Therefore the company ordered 20 plants.

Maureen’s initial investment was $16,800, and it has decreased by 5.8%. Its current value is therefore (100% - 5.8%) = 94.2% of $16,800, which is equal to 0.942 x $16,800. To make the multiplication simpler, this can be expressed as $(942 X 16.8). Thus multiplying, we obtain the result of $15,825.60.
The correct answer is C.

Maureen’s initial investment was $16,800, and it has decreased by 5.8%. Its current value is therefore (100% - 5.8%) = 94.2% of $16,800, which is equal to 0.942 x $16,800. To make the multiplication simpler, this can be expressed as $(942 x 16.8). Thus multiplying, we obtain the result of $15,825.60.

The company’s gross profit on the 500 toy trucks is the company’s revenue from selling the trucks minus the company’s cost of producing the trucks. The revenue is (500)($10.00) = $5,000.The cost for the first 100 trucks is (100)($5.00) = $500, and the cost for the other 400 trucks is (400)($3.50) = $1,400 for a total cost of $500 + $1,400 = $1,900. Thus, the company's gross profit is $5,000 - $1,900 = $3,100.
The correct answer is C.

let's calculate the absolute values of the profits/losses for each division over the three consecutive years.

Here is the data provided:

• Division A:
  • 1991–1993: -0.4
  • 1992–1994: 0.5
  • 1993–1995: 4.5
• Division B:
  • 1991–1993: -1.3
  • 1992–1994: 4.9
  • 1993–1995: -3.5
• Division C:
  • 1991–1993: 8.7
  • 1992–1994: -0.2
  • 1993–1995: 3.4

Let's calculate the absolute value of the sums:

1. Division A:

   • 1991–1993: |-0.4| = 0.4
   • 1992–1994: |0.5| = 0.5
   • 1993–1995: |4.5| = 4.5

2. Division B:

   • 1991–1993: |-1.3| = 1.3
   • 1992–1994: |4.9| = 4.9
   • 1993–1995: |-3.5| = 3.5

3. Division C:

   • 1991–1993: |8.7| = 8.7
   • 1992–1994: |-0.2| = 0.2
   • 1993–1995: |3.4| = 3.4

Among these values, the smallest absolute value (closest to 0) is 0.2 for Division C for the years 1992–1994.

Therefore, the correct answer is:

Option E: Division C for 1992-1994

Statement 1:

We are given that Thrice the number of questions that David solved in the test was greater than 6 less than thrice the number of questions that Steve solved in the test.

⇒ 3x > 3y − 6
⇒ x > y − 2
We cannot determine whether x > y, since x is greater than a quantity y, which is reduced by a certain amount, 2.

Let us take an example.

Say y = 10, thus x > 10−2 ⇒ x > 8.

If x = 9, then x ≯ y and the answer is No. However, if x = 11, then x > y and the answer is Yes. No unique answer. Insufficient!

Statement 2:

We are given that Twice the number of questions that David solved in the test was greater than 4 less than twice the number of questions that Steve solved in the test.

⇒ 2x > 2y − 4
⇒ x > y − 2
This is the same inequality that we got in Statement 1. Insufficient!

Statement 1 & 2:

Since each statement renders the same inequality, even combining both the statements cannot help. Insufficient!

Conclusion:

Each statement renders that same inequality, thus combining both the statements will not help.

You may have deduced a wrong conclusion with the inequality x > y − 2.

We see that x is greater than a number y minus 2; thus, x may or may not be greater than y.

Had the situation been x > y + 2, then it's for certain that x > y; since x is greater than a number (y + 2), then x must be greater than a relatively smaller number y.

We are given that each of the 25 books on bookshelf X is thinner than each of the 25 books on bookshelf Y.

⇒ (Thickness of the thickest book on bookshelf X) < (Thickness of the thinnest book on bookshelf Y)
You must not assume that the thickness of each of the 25 books on bookshelf X is the same; they all may be of different thickness; they all may be of the same thickness or a few of them may be of the same thickness. The same goes for the books on bookshelf Y.

We are asked to determine whether the median thickness of the 50 books is less than 20 millimeters.

You must know that to find out the median of a dataset, the elements of the dataset must be arranged in an ascending or in a descending order.

Let's assume that that all the 50 books are arranged as per the ascending order of their thickness. All 25 books of bookshelf X would be on the left-hand side, arranged as per the increasing order of the thickness of books, and all 25 books of bookshelf Y would be on the right-hand side, arranged as per the increasing order of the thickness of books. Thus, in this ordered arrangement of the 50 books, the thickest book of bookshelf X (25th book in order) would be immediately left of the thinnest book of bookshelf Y (26th in order).

You must know that:

(Median value of a dataset) = (Value of the middlemost element)
When the number of elements in the dataset is even, the median is equal to the average of the values of the two middlemost elements.

Thus:

(the median thickness of 50 books)=(Average of the thickness of 25th book and the thickness of 26th book in the ordered arrangement)
We know that the 26th book is the 1st book on bookshelf Y.

So, to get the value of median thickness of 50 books, we must know that value of the thickness of the thickest book of bookshelf X and of the thinnest book of bookshelf Y.

Note: In the above analysis, we arranged the books on the two shelves in ascending order of their thickness. If you chose to arrange them in descending order of thickness instead, that is fine too. The analysis remains the same.

Statement 1:

The thickness of the thinnest book on shelf X = 2 millimeters

This information is of no use to us as we want the thickness of the 25th and the 26th book to calculate the median. - Insufficient

Statement 2:

(Thickness of the thinnest book on shelf Y) = (Thickness of the 26th book in ascending order of thickness) = 20-millimeters
Though we do not know the thickness of the 25th book, we can make a deduction about the median. The question does not ask the value of the median; it asks whether the median thickness of the 50 books is less than 20 millimeters. This is a "Yes/No" type of question.

Since (the thickness of 26th book) = 20 millimeters, and we're given that even the thickest book on bookshelf X is thinner than the thinnest book on bookshelf Y, we can write: (the thickness of 25th book) < 20 millimeters.

Say (the thickness of 25th book)=19.99 millimeters. Thus, Median
=19.99 + 20 / 2 < 20 millimeters. The answer is Yes. - Sufficient

We are given that the box has balls of three different colors - red, blue and green, and the number of balls of each color is at least one in count. Thus, the minimum number of balls in the box = 3.

Let's understand what the question asks.

When one ball is drawn,

Is "(Probability of drawing a red ball) = (Probability of drawing a blue ball) ≠ (Probability of drawing a green ball)"

Say, the probability of drawing a red ball = p(r); the probability of drawing a blue ball = p(b); and the probability of drawing a green ball = p(g).

The question asks,

Is p(r) = p(b) ≠ p(g)?

So, the question boils down to:

"Does the box has the number of red color balls equal to the number of blue color balls but NOT equal to the number of green color balls?"

Statement 1:

There are 5 balls in the box.

Let's distribute them in three color balls such that we have at least one ball of each color.

Scenario 1: Red color: 1 ball; Blue color: 1 ball; and Green color: 3 balls.

We have the number of red color balls equal to the number of blue color balls, and NOT equal to the number of green color balls; the answer is Yes.

Scenario 2: Red color: 2 ball; Blue color: 1 ball; and Green color: 2 balls.

We have the number of red color balls NOT equal to the number of blue color balls, but equal to the number of green color balls; the answer is No.

No unique answer. Insufficient.

Note: Other scenarios are possible too but we do not need to consider them all because from just two scenarios, we can already see that Statement 1 is not sufficient for a unique answer.

Statement 2:

Only with this information, we can decide that the probability that the drawn ball is green is NOT equal to the probability that the drawn ball is blue; however, we have no clue about the number of red balls; number of red balls may or may not be equal to number of blue balls. Insufficient.

Statement 1 & 2:

Both the scenarios discussed in Statement 1 are applicable here too. Insufficient.

Had Statement 2 been, "The number of green color balls is greater than the number of blue balls and greater than the number of red balls," Scenario 2 would not have been applicable here, thus the answer would then be C.

In all of my classes and tutoring sessions, I emphasize how important it is to “spot the con” and to critically analyze your decision-making process when working through GMAT problems. This frequently missed question is a wonderful example of what happens when you don’t remain critical. In statement (1), you are given a piece of information that the test writers purposefully want you to determine is insufficient. You look at statement (1), glance at statement (2), and immediately realize that x and t could be positive or negative in statement (1) alone, making it insufficient. People feel good about themselves for identifying this fact and quickly pick (C), since adding statement (2) seems to guarantee that x and t are positive 2 and positive 3, respectively. 

Anytime the test writers can create a scenario in which you have a dopamine response and feel good about finding a trap, you are likely to stop being critical. The positive/negative issues present in this question are a shiny penny—so many people pick (C) because they only focus on the positive/negative ambiguity in statement (1), and statement (2) guarantees they are positive. However, when taken together, all that statements (1) and (2) tell you is that the ratio of x:t must be 2:3 and x and t must be positive. This still leaves an infinite number of possibilities for the two values: 2 and 3, 4 and 6, 6 and 9, 8 and 12, etc. Since the value for x cannot be determined, the correct answer is (E).

If both statements together still result in an infinite number of possibilities for the value of x, why do a majority of high-performing students still pick (C), thinking x must be 2? Because they don’t understand the con and they let their guard down! Just because you find one “con” in a question (in this example, the positive/negative issue), does not mean there aren’t others still present!