testtaker39

gdb97 is right! Let me show it in a similar way to gdb97's. Area of CDE = 1/2 * CE * DE = 42 (given). Area of ADG = 1/2 * AG * DG Now, let us find the value of AG and DG. As the triangles are similar, we can write: CD / DE = AD / DG AND CD/CE = AD / AG (or CD/AD = DE/DG and CD/AD = CE/AG). We know from the ques that, AB = BC = CD. Therefore, AD = 3CD because AD = AB + BC +CD Now rewrite, CD/DE = 3CD/DG and CD/CE = 3CD/AG => DG = 3DE => AG = 3CE Area of triangle ADG = 1/2 * AG *DG => 1/2 * 3CE * 3DE = 9 * (1/2 * CE * DE) = 9 * 42 = 378

Thanks gbd97. I've figured the problem. The whole time I ridiculously skipped reading a sentence in the ques (how can that be! might be the tension)! As a result the misunderstanding of the problem arose. However, here is the question: There is a chart depicting 2002 airplane inventory for airlines A and B by year of purchase (as a percent of 2002 inventory). question: New regulations go into effect in 2003 that require all planes in inventory to be newer than ten years old. Each year following 2002, both airlines need to sell the planes the regulations force them to eliminate from inventory, and then use the proceeds of those sales to increase their inventory by 10% (rounded down because they are unable to buy fractions of planes). What is the combined number of planes owned by the two companies following their sales and purchases in 2004? I skipped reading the part: "rounded down because they are unable to buy fractions of planes" and was rounding as what I think is appropriate!

Thanks gbd97. I was working on some problems from a book. There I found this solution of a problem: The question asked about the total no. of planes from 2 airlines. It needed some computations. Here is some parts of the solution. Company A has 225 planes. ..."So they add 10%, or 22 new planes". 10% of 225 is 22.5, so I took 23 in my solution, not 22. Again, "Now A has 237 planes, so they add 10% or 23 new planes". 10% of 237 is 23.7, so I took 24 in my solution, not 23. As a result my answer differed from the book's answer and I was confused. That's why I asked about ETS's policy. Do they round in this way in the middle of a long calculation?

Hi all, I am confused about what to do when I need to round values. The confusion arises for fill-in problems. Suppose I am doing a calculation that involves people or other stuff such as cars, planes etc; the type of things which cannot be bought or sold or do other things in fraction. Let, I have got 4.6 or 4.3 cars while I am in a chain of calculation. Should I round it to 4 cars or 5 cars? Since this is not a multiple choice question, I have to calculate it correctly. If I choose the number of cars to be 4, I have (say) 62 as a result. On the other hand, if I take 5, rounded to upper limit, I get 64. So, what to do now? I've seen two scenarios. In a problem (can't remember the book or source right now), I've found that all fractions were rounded to the upper limit irrespective of the value in tenths digit. Following this strategy, I've solved another problem from the book '1014 ques' by Princeton and my answer is wrong! The solution took every number with a fraction part truncated! Not rounded. Now I am confused! Do anyone know what strategy ETS follows for this type of problem?

The writing was timed. It was done in 35 minutes. I should be faster in writing. :( The task: An ailing patient should have easy access to his or her doctor’s record of treating similarly afflicted patients. Through gaining such access, the ailing patient may better determine whether the doctor is competent to treat that medical condition. My response: The author’s claim about allowing an ailing patient access to his or her doctor's record of treating similarly afflicted patients assumes that the treatment record reflects the doctor's competence which might not be true in most cases. As there are both obvious and subtle differences in physical conditions and acceptance of drugs or treatments of different persons for the same disease, the treatment record may also have subtle differences accordingly which the ailing patient may not understand properly, thus failing to assess the doctor's competence correctly. A simple difference in a patient’s case from others' cases may create major differences in a patient’s treatment record from that of others'. If an ailing patient does not have required knowledge to understand the stuff stated in a medical record, he/she might not be able to understand why do certain records differ and what are the reasons behind these differences. As a result, he/she might get puzzled and fail to apprehend the doctor's skill in treating that particular disease correctly. In this scenario, accessing the doctor's medical record is futile for the ailing patient’s part. For example, My mother is regularly seeing a doctor for the treatment of diabetes. Though she has a regular type of diabetes, her treatment is not the same as other diabetes patients since she has a major type of skin disease. If any diabetic patient, who intends to see the same doctor, take a look at my mother’s treatment record, he/she might get confused, make a wrong judgment about the doctor's competence and may decide not to see the doctor. Here, allowing the ailing patient to see previous treatment record of other patients may create an unjustifiable situation for both the doctor and the ailing patient, thus invalidates the authors claim. Again, a patient might not follow the doctor’s prescription correctly and timely. If this was true for a previous case, which is very likely for the patients who are not that cautious, the treatment record would not reflect the usual course of disease diagnosis and treatment. In this case, an ailing patient, allowed to see the doctor's treatment record, might again have a wrong idea about the doctor's competence in treating a certain disease and this is obviously not fair. By not allowing an ailing patient to see the doctor's treatment record, wrong judgment about doctor's competence can be prevented and this is clearly contrary to the authors claim. In medical ethics, a patient’s case history and treatment record is confidential. A patient may have a disease which could be marked with social stigma. For example, patients bearing Aids and sexually transmitted diseases are sometimes treated badly in some societies. People think that they are morally reprehensible in bearing these diseases. Allowing other ailing patients to see the the medical record will reveal this kind of information which may not be acceptable by the particular patient. So, it is vary justifiable to assume that an ailing patient should not be allowed to see a doctor's treatment record. Considering all the explanations stated above, it seems very logical that a doctor's medical record is not representative of his competence. And also, it is often unethical. So it can be concluded that, the authors claim, which advocates allowing a doctor’s medical record, is not justifiable.

Hi YannMK, you have obtained a very good score in quant and also in verbal. Thank you for your insightful description of the preparation procedure. Good luck with your AWA score.

Ques. 1: The paragraph does not provide us with any technique for how to make a movie artistic. It merely states that an artistic movie is composed of many discrete shots. It does not tell us what we should do to make a movie 'artistic'. What it tells is that, there are many options that a director can choose to shoot those discrete shots. So, it goes to director. The paragraph describes us the ways that the director can follow to make those shots. So, to follow an appropriate way for his/her movie, the director should be 'good' in direction. Here comes answer 'C'.

The problem states that the population doubles in 10 years. Here I think, in your reply, you are doubling after 3 years. So, if the population is 80 at the end of 7 years, it should be doubled to 160 after 10 years from the time when it was 80. In total, it takes (7+10) = 17 years to be 160 (as from your calculation). Isn't it?

Thanks samidh.

Hi there! X is less (fewer) than Y means Y is greater. Accordingly, fewer cats than dogs means number of Dogs is greater than number of cats. So, 18 fewer cats than dogs implies there are 18 more in dog group than in cat group.

Hi Mani Raja! Solve the math in steps. First, calculate the amount (no. of ounce) of vinegar in the mixture. Vinegar: 40% of 12 ounce = (40 * 12)/100 = 4.8 ounce According to the question, in the new mixture, Only oil will be added to the mixture, no vinegar. So, amount of Vinegar remains the same: 4.8 ounce. Let, x ounce of more oil will be added. As a result, the new mixture becomes 12+x ounce. 4.8 ounce of vinegar is now 25% of the 12+x ounce of the new mixture. (requirement stated in the question). Therefore, 4.8 = 25% of (12+x) 4.8 = [ 25 * (12+x) ]/100 x = 7.2 Ans: 7.2 ounce of oil must be added.

I have a question regarding an inequality from Manhattan GRE algebra. Question no. 15 from Algebra: Hard Practice Question set. The (exact) percentage of lawyers practicing different types of law: Corporate law: 21%, Administrative law: 16%, Personal Injury law: 22%, Human resource law: 17%, Intellectual Property law: x%, Criminal litigation: (x2)%, Civil litigation: (x+1)%. Quantity A: The number of lawyers practicing all types of litigation Quantity B: The number of lawyers practicing corporate law Solution from the book: 21 + x2 + (x+1) +16 + 22 + 17 + x = 100 x2 + 2x +76 = 100 (Shouldn't it be 77 ? ) (x+6)(x+4) = 0 x = 4 or -6 The percentage of litigation is: 42 + (4 + 1) = 21, which is equal to the percentage in corporate law. The answer is C. Here, if the 76 is corrected to 77 and the value of x is not rounded, then it is slightly less than 4. As a result, the percentage of litigation becomes slightly less than 21. In that case the answer should be B, not C. Am I right or should I round the value of x in such cases? (The question did not suggest to round any value.)

Thanks gr8acky. I have checked the solution again. It was a data interpretation (fill in) question. The ques was like: "Rounded to the nearest percent, what is the greatest percent change in.....?" The solution says: ".......(26.8 – 1.8 = 25.0 and 25.0/26.6 is approximately 93%). Since 93% is a greater change, the answer is 93." Do you think I have missed something?

Many thanksgr8acky! It was a silly question. Felt awkward after creating the thread. Actually I confused it with another problem, was exercising math for a while and suddenly started to mess up on all the ques. Thanks again! :)

I am a bit confused about the solution of an inequality problem. The problem is from Manhattan GRE algebra. Here is the problem: x and y are both positive integers. Quantity A |x+y| Quantity B |x| - |y| What should be the solution you think? Can you give an explanation?