cjoy

Key thing is for us to identify the 10% of the wrong OAs. Here are the problems associated with this activity :- (1) When we give tests most of us usually go through only our wrong attempts and we don't go through our right attempts again and that is where the problem lies. For example if I give a Verbal set and there are 5 wrong OAs in it. I cross check my answers with the OAs and find that as per the OAs I have 30 rights and 11 wrongs. I would go back and check my 11 wrong ones. I wouldn't go and verify my 30 rights. Now say these 5 wrong OAs are a subset of my 30 rights. I would not be able to find out my mistakes and I would have a wrong idea about my level of preparation. I would also end up learning wrong concepts which would not be useful for me in my GMAT. (2) Next issues is the time that we need to spend on identifying the wrong OAs. It takes several hours only for verifying the OAs that we are not in agreement with. When I was preparing I found that most of these controversial OAs don't have a convincing answer in the forums. If instead we were going through some reliable material we can avoid wastage of time on this activity. Again this is what my experience was and it might not be applicable for others. But just in case if it is applicable for you then its better to do other material which has reliable OAs.

I found GMAT sets to be misleading and stopped attempting them after 5-6 verbal sets. OAs are worng for many questions and relying on the OAs would mislead you. If you feel that attempting these sets is denting your confidence I would suggest that you guys must not go ahead with the sets and rather take up othere material for practice.

I feel then the couple should not be allowed to come close to each other :) Coming to your question you can use this approach. We can figure out the total number of scenarios possible using 2^x (where x= total no of babies). For each distribution of babies find out the total number of combinations possible using xCy. Where y=total number of girls [since x=no of boys + no of girls. y can be replaced with total number of boys as well] Probability will be xCy/2^x

That should not make a difference. Here we need to use possessive form of the noun "people". We can have more than one representative.

@mc007bond This is what dictionary.com has to say about peoples When people means “the entire body of persons who constitute a community or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, etc.,” it is used as a singular, with the plural peoples: This people shares characteristics with certain inhabitants of central Asia. The aboriginal peoples of the Western Hemisphere speak many different languages. @surya167 IMO in the example that you have given right usage should be "People's Representative" and not "Peoples represenatative"

Please read my response clearly. I said "so ... as ... to" is wrong idiom to indicate conclusion I hope now its clear for you

IMO © In 2000 greater fraction (say 10X) of US population is old as compared to the fraction (say 5X) of old people in 1987. From 1987 to 2000 inceidence rate of sinusitis remains the same for all age groups. Let the incidence rate be Y (constant froom 1987 to 2000) for people in older age group. Number of older people suffering from Sinusitis in 2000= 10XY Number of older people suffering from Sinusitis in 1987 = 5XY This would mean out of total number of sinusitis patients the percentage contirnution of patients in older age group has increased.

Many a times DS questions are framed with a catch in it. You can do the following to minimize your DS mistakes:- (1) Try to identify if there is a pattern behind your DS mistakes.What I mean is that you can try and identify whether most of the mistakes are happenning in set theory/permutaions/probability/number theory/inequality or some other specific area. If you can find that the mistakes are in a specific area then go through that area once more and go through your mistakes that yoiu made in that area. This way you can identify why you made those mistakes and how to avoid them when a similar question comes next time. (2) If the DS question deals with inequality, divisibility or absolute values then substitue values in the equation and verify both the options. For example in case of inequality and abolute values 2,1,0.5,0,-0.5,-1,-2 is a good set of values you can use. (2) Read the question very carefully. Even if it means spending 15-20 seconds extra on reading it. This would make sure that you have got the question right and the first obstacle towrds getting the right answer is crossed. (3) Double checking the answer before confirming it. This had helped me in avoiding 2-3 mistakes in real GMAT. Regarding what to do in the remaining two weeks, I would suggest you to go through new questions in your weak area, revise the concepts (IMO no need to go through old questions) and give few full length tests.

IMO OA is correct. Press Secretary states that the decision has been made on the basis of the report. Report says that the cancelled projects were wasteful. Assumption is that the report doesn't idenitify many projects as wasteful in districts controlled by president's party. Lets say in all 90 projects in opposition controlled district were cancelled and only 10 in districts conteolled by president's party. If the report identifies only these 100 projects then fine. Bu what if the report identofes 180 projects equally distributed across the two groups. Argument assumes that something like that is not present in the report. Hence (B)

OAs given in SETs are not reliable. I had stopeed using SETs because of this problem. Anyway my choices are:- 1 . (E) Argument shows disadvantage of cable cars. An option which can show advantage of cable cars will be most effective in countering the argument. Option (E) gives advantage of cable car and in IMO is the right option. 2. (E) Argumnet compares use of insecticides for farmers who used insect resistant seeds with that for farmers who didn't use these seeds. It doesn't provide any information why the farmers who used insect resistant seeds tried these seeds in the first place. For these farmers problem of insects affecting their crops would have been more severe in the past and they may have used large quantities of insecticides in the previous years. Use of the new seeds would have brought down their use of insecticides significantly from previous years. Aswer to option (E) will make this clear 3. (D) Argument fails to take into account actual crime rate and makes it conclusion based on growth in crime rates.

Otori, Is the option B typed correctly? IMO option D would have been correct. If it was either like that of his brother Jeff, who preferred or like that of his brother Jeff, preferring IMO all options have issues. What is the source of this problem?

IMO (E) Information available from question stem * Average hourly output per worker has grown/ Productivity has increased * Leasure time has grown as total time workers spend on producing somethisng has reduced. Now let us use this information in an example. If it used to take 4 hours to produce something in the past now it takes only 2 hours. Taking a 40 hour week, in the past a worker would have produced 40/4=10 units of the product in a week. Now due to increase in productivity he needs to spend only 20 hour to produce 10 units. He is left with 40-20=20 hours. But the time he spends on leasure has grown say only by 10 hours. That leaves us with 20-10=10 hours unaccounted for. Answer should account for remaining 10 hours. Let us move to option (E) now. As per option (E) the number of units produced by a worker in a week has increased. Correlating this with our example, it would mean the worker produces 5 units extra. And in all he produces 15 units now. These extra 5 units account for the 10 hours and hence option (E) is the best choice. No other option satisfies the requirement of question stem.

I disagree because of the following reason. In option (A) chess is compared to other board games. Question stem doesn't carry any information about popularity of other board games. Consider these possibilities * Board games in general, irrespective of price, are not popular? * Chess is in fact already more popular than other board games If we take these two possibilities to be false (which will be an assumption that we will have to mae now), option (A) will be been correct. Since the question stem carried no information about relative popularity of chess with respect to other board games, choosing option (A) would be incorrect. Option © on the other hand directly contradicts the reason for unpopularity of chess as cited by the consorotium and IMO is the best option It only gives a reason which consortium believes to be the reason

IMO © Established Company -> Slide Rule Manufacturer Product they already have -> Slide Rule Innovation of Others -> Electornic Calculators Defense of existing product -> Making better slide rules

IMO C. As per ©, more we recycle plastics more it gets unrecyclable (if there is a word like this :-) ). This means -> Even if the consumer buys a plastic container of lower code now, after recycling the same plastic will become less suitable for recycling and code associated with it will increase. Soon the recycled plastic will reach its end of life (state when it has to be disposed in landfills) and will no longer be usable. This would mean that irrespective of people making a selection for plastic with lower code after recycling the plastic will get degraded and the purpose of this strategy will fail.