DeusExMachina

Hi hn1492, I am wondering the same thing. OG10 and OG11 quant questions seem ridiculously easy compared to some in the GMATPrep practice tests. However, GP scores very leniently in Quant. Is this how the real GMAT is? Or is GP just setting low expectations for our math performance?

Congratulations jhan5!! Is the difficulty level of quant questions in the real GMAT simliar to those in GMATPrep? I found GP to be much more difficult than OG, but also very lenient with its grading. Thus, making a dozen quant mistakes (near the end) in GP can still result in a Q49...

Thanks Shifty! I see your point.

Agreed..I vote for C. As Manhattan GMAT would say: "Avoid superficial parallelism". Meaning: make sure the meaning as well as the structure is parallel. Do not choose a parallel answer solely for the sake of maintaining parallelism, although in most cases this strategy will suffice. A - unclear referrent for "it" B - unidiomatic use of "compared to" (how are you comparing them?? more than? less than?) D - what energy? whose energy? not clear that sentence is referring to Germany's energy E - again, unidiomatic use of "compared with" (how are you comparing them??) C, while it doesn't provide strict parallelism, maintains parallelism of meaning. What is providing 33 percent of the energy in Germany? Nuclear power plants in Germany do!

This can also be solved using similar triangles - assuming that the right angle is at (0,3). Refer to image... Let point A = (-4, 0), B = (0, 3), C = (b, 0), D = (0, 0) Since we know BD = 3 and AD = 4, we know AB = 5 (3-4-5 triangle). Since triangles ABD and ABC share two equal angle measures, they are similiar triangles are proportional. Thus: 4:5 = 5: (4+b). Or 4/5 = 5/(4+b). Cross multiply -> 25 = 16 + 4b. -> b = 9/4

Thank you, Bob.

Thank you, Bob. I'm sure many others on this board agree that grammar rules are not as neat and tidy as math rules. You've been a tremendous help in defining the rules more clearly so that they are not as ambiguous as they originally seemed.

Thank you, Bob.

Me too, Kamal. I guess errors/inconsistencies in test prep materials annoy me to no end.

As of this morning, none of my friends have been able to solve the puzzle contained in last week's newspaper. (A) none of my friends have been able to solve (B) none of my friends was able to solve © not one of my friends has yet been able to solve (D) none of my friends has been able to solve (E) nobody among my friends have solved My answer: Kaplan answer: I narrowed it down to my answer and Kaplan's answer. Kaplan's explanation of its answer is that None is singular. However, according to Manhattan GMAT, the word "none" is a member of a group of words that may be singular or plural, based on the context: Some, Any, None, All, Most (SANAM). The object of the "of" construction determines the number of the subject. In this case, the object "friends" should indicate a plural subject. So who's correct? Manhattan GMAT or Kaplan800?

Hi 800Bob, Shouldn't the subject of the participle "enabling" be the "broad discretionary powers"? I thought that the powers enable the CIA to withold information from the public, rather than the Supreme Court that awarded them. Thus, the pronoun "it" could still refer to the earlier subject of "the Supreme Court"?

Hi blowfish (if you even check these boards anymore), I made the same mistake as you in thinking that length is not necessarily greater than width. I appreciate your research from the Dr. Math forum. Thanks!

Hello, I wrote the following two essays while taking a Princeton Review CAT online. The essay graders gave me a '5' on both essays, and made the following comments on both: -Avoid run-on sentences. -Begin each paragraph with a topic sentence Can someone tell me if I really need to start each paragraph with a topic sentence? And also, where are my run-on sentences? After completing the test, I ran both essays through Word and did not see any sentence fragments or run-ons. Thanks! ================================================ AWA-Argument Prompt:Manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Moreover, the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men and women into space. Therefore, we should invest our resources in unmanned space flight. My Essay: The author asserts that we should invest our resources in unmanned spaceflight. As evidence for this conclusion, the author points out that manned space flight is costly and dangerous, and that a great deal of useful information can be gathered by unmanned spaceflights. The author makes many critical assumptions that upon close examination, reveal a poorly-reasoned argument lacking in substantial evidence and support. First, the author makes the assumption that the information gathered from manned spaceflight is not useful or important enough to warrant the additional cost and risk. This is a major leap of faith since there are still many experiments and functions that humans perform that cannot be replicated by robots or computers. A prime example of this is the International Space Station that houses a full-fledged scientific lab. Scientists from all over the world visit the Space Station to perform valuable experiments that obviously could not be performed by simple robots or computer simulations. Second, the author assumes that the space flight cost and risk are the only factors contributing to the decision to invest in manned vs. unmanned spaceflight. The author clearly neglects the many social, political, and scientific reasons for spaceflight. For example, John F. Kennedy proclaimed in the early 60's that the U.S. would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. As a result, a veritable "Space Race" was kicked off between the U.S. and its arch-rival, Russia. The reasons behind this monumental effort were as much political as they were scientific. Furthermore, the political impact of manned spaceflight has not waned in the past decades. In addition to the U.S. and Russia, only Japan and a few European countries have been successful in sending astronauts into space. China has recently stepped up its program to send "taikonauts" into space in an effort to proclaim its recent political and economic status of world superpower. The author could have further supported his argument by providing additional evidence showing that all information from manned spaceflight could eventually be gathered by unmanned vehicles. This would greatly minimize the need to invest our resources in manned spaceflight. Also, the author could have proven that the traditional political and social forces behind space flight investment decisions have recently waned, and that the major factors now are only cost and risk. In conclusion, many assumptions are necessary in order to validate the author's implied conclusion that we should invest our resources solely in unmanned spaceflight. With the rapid advances in robotics and automation, the replacement of certain aspects of space exploration with unmanned spaceflight is a welcome solution. However, there are many reasons that show manned spaceflight as a necessary component of space exploration. As a result, we must invest our resources in manned space flight as well. ================================================ AWA-Issue Prompt: No employee of any business, public or private, should have complete autonomy; even employees at the highest level of management require some supervision. My Essay: The author asserts the opinion that no employee of any business, public or private, should have complete autonomy and that even executives at the highest levels of management require some degree of supervision. The opposing side of this argument is that there are certain situations where employees must have complete autonomy over their decisions and actions. I strongly agree with the author's point of view that employees at all levels must be supervised and regulated to some degree. First, it is generally agreed upon that most employees should not enjoy complete autonomy over their actions and decisions at work. This is obvious since one of the primary responsibilities of a manager is to ensure that his or her employees are performing a satisfactory job while following corporate and ethical guidelines. The heart of the issue is the notion that certain high level executives ought to have complete control over the decisions and actions that trickle down through the organization. While this idea seems to promote corporate efficiency and a solid leadership, external supervision is critical to ensure that the executives themselves are abiding by legal, ethical, and corporate guidelines. A perfect example of this necessary supervision is the board of directors that is implemented to oversee executive management. This board represents the interests of corporate stockholders, and ensures that there is a certain level of supervision over the highest levels of management. Without this formalized supervision, corporate executives would be free to exercise their own agendas, which often contradict the wishes of the stockholders. Furthermore, there have been numerous cases where even a corporate board of directors is not sufficient to govern the actions of its executive management. The numerous corporate scandals that have arisen from major corporations such as Enron, Tyco, Arthur Anderson, and Qwest further illustrate that strong regulatory controls are required to monitor and supervise the decisions and activities of its executives. As a result, the federal government has instituted a number of regulatory measures. One such measure is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which mandates the separation of accounting and other businesses that may result in conflicts of interest as well as a number of corporate governance controls. In addition, NASD 3013 forces executives to sign off on a number of ethical and legal affidavits to ensure compliance with federal law. In conclusion, the aforementioned examples have clearly shown that employees at all levels require supervision. Some may argue that at the highest levels of management, executives must be afforded complete autonomy over their decisions and actions in order to execute and lead the company in a clear and efficient direction. However, we have seen many cases in which executives do not always have the company's best interests in mind, often resulting in the eventual demise of the company.

IMO, "In less" requires "the" before "35 years" because In requires an object to modify. Conversely, "Less than" does not require "the" before "35 years" because Less than modifies an amount. Thus, choices A and C start out idiomatically correct. However, C fixes the tense problem to indicate the bees were released prior to their migration. IMO, the other choices are wordy, unidiomatic, and contain incorrect verb tenses...

E, B also. E because of the reasons stated by others above. B because it is the only choice that maintains parallel structure: "aim to identify ... and seat".