Questions & Strategies For GMAT Prep

Quadruple Pill Combo Package - now with Quiz!		~~$413~~ $327 Compare
$327 package
	Simple Video Explanations Quick and Painless Incredible Value

Loading Quotes...

Math word problem

TheGMATPill | Questions & Strategies For GMAT Prep.

Quote:
Three Friends sit down to eat 14 slices of Pizza.If two of the Friends eat the same number of slices ,and the third eats two more slices than each of the other two,how many slices are eaten by the third friend?

“Three Friends sit down to eat 14 slices of Pizza.”
f1 + f2 + f3 = 14

“If two of the Friends eat the same number of slices”
f1 = f2

“third eats two more slices than each of the other two”
f3 = f2 + 2
f3 = f1 + 2

“how many slices are eaten by the third friend?”
f3 = ?

Look at the information you have. Do you have enough information? Do you the number of equations equal the number of variables?
1) f1 + f2 + f3 = 14
2) f1 = f2
3) f3 = f2 + 2
4) f3 = f1 + 2
Well, you have 3 unknowns and 4 equations. More equations than unknowns means you can answer this question! So now let’s do it!

since f1 = f2, you can rewrite #1:
f2 + f2 + f3 = 14

Since we want to solve for f3, we want to leave all the f3’s in there, but express f2 with f3 inside of it. Look for an equation that has both f2 and f3 in it

Aha! f3 = f2+2
express f2 as a function of f3 so that you can plug it in later
f2 = f3 – 2

Now plug it in to: f2 + f2 + f3 = 14, or 2f2 + f3 = 14
2 (f3-2) + f3 = 14
2f3 – 4 + f3 = 14
3f3 = 18

f3 = 6

Voila! The third guy ate six slices!!

And of course the other two guys must have eaten 2 less, so that would be 6-2 = 4 slices

Digg Stumble Upon Del.icio.us Buzz

4 comments
Hotly Debated Sentence Correction GMAT Prep Question

TheGMATPill | Questions & Strategies For GMAT Prep.

In recent years cattle breeders have increasingly used crossbreeding, in part that their steers should acquire certain characteristics and partly because crossbreeding is said to provide hybrid vigor.

A.in part that their steers should acquire certain characteristics

B.in part for the acquisition of certain characteristics in their steers

C.partly because of their steers acquiring certain characteristics

D.partly because certain characteristics should be acquired by their steers

E.partly to acquire certain characteristics in their steers.

Step 1) Recognize the keyword "and"—the left side is underlined and the right side is not.

Step 2) Since the right side uses "partly" I am biased towards answer choices C, D, and E. So I don’t even bother looking at A and B for now.

Step 3) With (C), "partly because of their steers acquiring"—not the preferred way of saying it…prefer "partly because their steers acquire certain characteristics"….move on for now

With (D), "partly because certain characteristics should be acquired by their steers"—this is frameowrk #1 Active Voice and clarity—"by their steers" indicates passive voice—generally not preferred, though not necessarily wrong yet….keep moving

With (E), "partly to acquire certain characteristics in their steers"—this is active voice. Good. But is it consistent with what is on the other side of the keyword "and"???
Here’s the tricky part. At first glance, most people would say it is not consistent. Because most people just look at the first two words "partly because" versus "partly to"

But actually it is consistent! Read it like this:
"In recent years cattle breeders have increasingly used crossbreeding, partly toacquire certain characteristics in their steers and partly because crossbreeding is said to provide hybrid vigor."

Notice both sides of the "and’ are in the form of "partly ….to do something…"
1) "partly to acquire"
and
2) "partly to provide hybrid vigor"

So that’s consistent. (D) would be correct if it were "partly because crossbreeding will allow their steers to acquire certain characteristics"–but that’s not what D says. So the answer is (E).

More Related Questions:

GMAT Verbal in 10 seconds
GMAT Psychology
GMAT Test Dates

Digg Stumble Upon Del.icio.us Buzz

2 comments
Tough Critical Reasoning GMAT Prep Question

TheGMATPill | Questions & Strategies For GMAT Prep.

[inline] [/inline]
Here’s a tough critical reasoning question. Even though it comes from an LSAT source, this type of question can easily show up on the GMAT as well so make sure you know it!

TOUGH Critical Reasoning Question From Student
GMAT Pill Timer

Lap # This Lap Running Total

Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions is not well served if the participants fail to use the word “explosion” and use the phrase “energetic disassembly” instead. In fact, the word “explosion” elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not. Therefore, of the two terms, “explosion” is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument above depends?

(A) In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term “explosion” outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term.
(B) The phrase “energetic disassembly” has not so far been used as a substitute for the word “explosion” in the kind of discussion at issue.
(C) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the participants is more important than how it is put into words.
(D) The only reason that people would have for using “energetic disassembly” in place of “explosion” is to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.
(E) The phrase “energetic disassembly” is not necessarily out of place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion

I am not able to paraphrase the argument pls help????

source : LSAT

Answer (A). Let me try to explain:

First, we need to figure out what is going on.

Step 1): Start with this part of the sentence: "Any serious policy discussion about acceptable levels of risk in connection with explosions"

You should visualize in your head 2 items:
1) "acceptable levels of risk"
2) "explosions"

So apparently there’s a "connection" between these two items…you should at least get that far. Now read on…

Step 2): "…is not well served if the participants fail to use the word “explosion” and use the phrase “energetic disassembly” instead."

So you can translate this as saying that you really should use the word "explosion." It’s not fair when you use the other word "energetic disassembly" when really you should be using "explosion."

So in your head you should be thinking:

1) explosion = good
2) energetic disassemby = bad

Step 3): "…In fact, the word “explosion” elicits desirable reactions, such as a heightened level of attention, whereas the substitute phrase does not."

So apparently there are some positive things associated with the word "explosion" but not associated with the other word.

Step 4): "…Therefore, of the two terms, “explosion” is the one that should be used throughout discussions of this sort."

AHA! Keyword "Therefore" tells you this is your conclusion sentence. Basically it’s saying you should use the word "explosion."

Step5): Now go through the answer choices:

(A) In the kind of discussion at issue, the advantages of desirable reactions to the term “explosion” outweigh the drawbacks, if any, arising from undesirable reactions to that term.

–This is exactly what STEP #3 was about—there are positives (advantages) associated with the word "explosion".—-so far (A) looks GOOD!

(B) The phrase “energetic disassembly” has not so far been used as a substitute for the word

“explosion” in the kind of discussion at issue.

- This is OPPOSITE of what is is implied. Obviously SOMEONE has been using the word "energetic disassembly" with the issue at hand and it’s been PISSING off the author. Now the author is pissed off and he/she is writing this paragraph saying that people shouldn’t be using "energetic assembly" because it’s not accurate/fair. So (B) is the opposite of what we’re looking for—NO GOOD

(C) In any serious policy discussion, what is said by the participants is more important than how it is put into words.

—This looks like a typical booby trap sentence where they say something that is common knowledge or wisdom but that is TOTALLY unrelated to the passage. –NO GOOD

(D) The only reason that people would have for using “energetic disassembly” in place of “explosion” is to render impossible any serious policy discussion concerning explosions.

- out of scope. We are not concerned with the reason of usage.

(E) The phrase “energetic disassembly” is not necessarily out of place in describing a controlled rather than an accidental explosion.

–again out of scope–we are not talking about controlled versus accidental explosion but rather the use of the word explosion versus the use of the word "energetic disassembly."

You could have looked at answer (A) and just quickly glance at the other answer choices. Seeing that most of them are not so relevant, you can just stick to your intuition that answer (A) is correct and move on!

_________________
Zeke Lee
Co-Founder, The GMATPill Study Method
http://www.gmatpill.com
98%ile GMAT in 2 weeks

Digg Stumble Upon Del.icio.us Buzz
Sentence Correction GMAT Prep Question

TheGMATPill | Questions & Strategies For GMAT Prep.

[inline]
[script type='text/javascript']
// 0/1 = start/end
// 2 = state
// 3 = length, ms
// 4 = timer
// 5 = epoch
// 6 = disp el
// 7 = lap count

var t=[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1];

function ss() {
t[t[2]]=(new Date()).valueOf();
t[2]=1-t[2];

if (0==t[2]) {
clearInterval(t[4]);
t[3]+=t[1]-t[0];
var row=document.createElement(’tr’);
var td=document.createElement(’td’);
td.innerHTML=(t[7]++);
row.appendChild(td);
td=document.createElement(’td’);
td.innerHTML=format(t[1]-t[0]);
row.appendChild(td);
td=document.createElement(’td’);
td.innerHTML=format(t[3]);
row.appendChild(td);
document.getElementById(’lap’).appendChild(row);
t[4]=t[1]=t[0]=0;
disp();
} else {
t[4]=setInterval(disp, 43);
}
}
function r() {
if (t[2]) ss();
t[4]=t[3]=t[2]=t[1]=t[0]=0;
disp();
document.getElementById(’lap’).innerHTML=”;
t[7]=1;
}

function disp() {
if (t[2]) t[1]=(new Date()).valueOf();
t[6].value=format(t[3]+t[1]-t[0]);
}
function format(ms) {
// used to do a substr, but whoops, different browsers, different formats
// so now, this ugly regex finds the time-of-day bit alone
var d=new Date(ms+t[5]).toString()
.replace(/.*([0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9]:[0-9][0-9]).*/, ‘$1′);
var x=String(ms%1000);
while (x.length<3) x='0'+x;
d+='.'+x;
return d;
}

function load() {
t[5]=new Date(1970, 1, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0).valueOf();
t[6]=document.getElementById('disp');

disp();

if (!window.opener && window==window.top) {
document.getElementById('remote').style.visibility='visible';
}
}

function remote() {
window.open(
document.location, '_blank', 'width=700,height=350'
);
return false;
}
[/script]

[/inline]

So here’s a question I got asked to answer. Some sources mistakenly put the answer as D, but really it’s C.

Visby is the largest city on the Swedish island of Gotland; arguably the best-preserved medieval town in Scandinavia, and has become a World Heritage Site.

A. arguably the best-preserved medieval town in Scandinavia, and has become a World Heritage Site.
B. it is arguably the best-preserved medieval town in Scandinavia, and, as a result of this, has become a World Heritage Site.
C. arguably the best-preserved medieval town in Scandinavia, it has become a World Heritage Site.
D. it has become a World Heritage Site, and arguably the best-preserved medieval town in Scandinavia.
E. is arguably the best-preserved medieval town in Scandinavia, a World Heritage Site.

GMAT Pill Timer

Lap # This Lap Running Total

More importantly, you should have the right approach to this question. There are a couple of frameworks I talk about in the Sentence Correction Pill that will better help you understand how to attack this question. In particular, framework #3.

Here’s my recommended approach to this question:

Step 1: Scan the sentence and notice a semi colon that is NOT part of the underlined portion of the sentence. That means the underlined portion must read just like a full regular sentence.

Step 2: So now that we pretend the entire first part of the sentence before the semicolon is not there—we notice that the underlined portion does not make sense. “Arguably…., ” is the phrase that should describe the subject on the other side of the comma. Instead, we have “and has become…”–which does not make sense in A.

Step 3: Eliminate A and look at other alternatives in the answer choices.

With (B), it’s quite wordy “and, as a result of this…”—NOT GOOD

With (C), “arguably” describes the word next to the comma “it”–so that makes sense. seems OK

With (D), you don’t need the comma before “and”—-if you use a comma, then there needs to be a subject on the right side of the comma. –seems IFFY

With (E), where’s the subject? It starts with “is”–which does not make sense. Remember the underlined portion should read as a complete sentence so it cannot start with “is”—NOT GOOD

Step 4: Only answer choice (C) makes sense. Read it again..does it make sense as a sentence by itself?

“Arguably the best-preserved medieval town in Scandinavia, it has become a World Heritage Site.”

It’s OK to have “it” refer back to the portion on the other side of the semicolon way back in the beginning.

You can also reread it like this:
“Arguably the best-preserved medieval town in Scandinavia, [Visby] has become a World Heritage Site.”

Choose C and move on!

_________________
Zeke Lee
Founder of the GMAT Pill Study Method

Digg Stumble Upon Del.icio.us Buzz