piyusht

This question is testing the number theory. statement 1 tells about n being a prime number and nothign else. RULED OUT. statement 2 says diff between any 2 positive factor is ODD. Since 1 is universal factor, and for the difference to be odd the other factor should be even. even - 0dd = odd so it could be 2, 4, 6, 8, 10.. etc but in case there are factors otherthan 2 thn we have factors like 1, 2, 4 or 1, 2, 6 though 2-1 = odd but 4-2 = even ! hence only exception is when it has only 2 factors. 1 & 2. 2-1 = odd. Statement 2 is sufficient

question stands for all values of k,m & n and not just = 0

OA sud be A. if x=1, mean of 1&10 = 5.5, z = 5x = 5 so z if x=9, mean of 9&10 = 9.5, z=5x = 45 so z>mean B is not sufficient.

Given => W:C = 5:2 = 25:10 from 1 C:M = 5:11 = 10:22 hence W:C:M = 25:10:22 therefore W/M = 25/22 M = 22W/25 2. Says that there are less than 30 woman, Using 1 & 2 and fact that we cant have men in fraction, this will be true only whn the number of women will be 25 as 25 has prime facors 5*5 and 22 has 11*2 (nothing in common) therefore M = 22 C???

Let Yolanda walked X, so Bob would walk 45-X. Time taken by Yolanda, t(say), and time by Bob = t -1 Yolands walked X in t hrs @ 3 m/h X= 3t Bob walked 45-x in t-1 hrs @4 m/h 45-X=4(t-1) Simultaneous equation , solving we get t = 7, x = 21 So bob walked 45-x = 45-21 = 24

Wow ... geat score! i think u sudnt be losing ur sleep for that GPA of yours. Such a GMAT score can cover it very well. Also since you are out of studies for quite some time ( i guess u have around 10 years of work exp) , the adcom wont be putting that much of a stress on your grades, rather they would like to know more about the kind of things you did AFTER your education, the kind of work exp you have , and all that stuff. SO make sure that you stress more on these things in your applications than cribbing about your low GPA and spending a considerable amount of space in essays, trying to account for it. So aim for the top!

B is telling the thing from workers' point of view. D is a general statement. Here we are talking why workers arent leaving.

i take A too. EDITED: after seeing it again , i think C suits better. My reason: we are talking about honeybees as in C , not release of honeybee and the second part of the sentence (their) is correctly referring to honeybess ( as in C) not release of it (as in A)

hmm.. Looking at your quant score, i think u sudnt stick to kaplan for quant. The quant level in kaplan is way higher than real GMAt and that just might undermine ur confidence in this section if you dnt get the explanations.. Stick to OG or PR os books like tht which teach basics. With these books you can easily reach 40 in quant. All the best for ur retake!

well IMO, theres a slight difference. HAs not been proftable doesnt throw out the possibilty that it might somehow become profitable in some different set of conditions. unprofitable means more like a loss and hence its can be taken as an adjective in this question. Agree with B

should b C . The underline clause makes the behavior and though processes restrictive. Hence C&D. use of might is correct in C. It also maintains parallelism. Also use of under in D is incorrect.

B doesnt say ANYTHING about population of less than 20 yrs old.

i took E for not using "they"... "it" sud have been used! E is better structred than D

while can also suggest some event taking at the same time.

most are not preventable but some are . IN the argument its saying Since it costs the health-care system less to prevent a disease than to treat it after it has occurred, This is a general statement from the health system about a disease and can be put to the rare diseases only if it applies to these diseases too! So by concluding that it would apply to these rare disease the author assumes that this GENERAL statement holds true for these rare disease that means total cost of prevention will bbe less screening and treatment. Doesnt A seems to say the same thing?

first part of B is almost correct but second part of B is not. 2nd boldface is an example, not an evidence! Its happening with XYZ doesnt mean it will happen to all , hence tht cant be used as evidence. E it is.

Statement cant be true only if the fungicide , even after dilution, remains strong eough to eliminate mildew. Hence E.

good one. will go with A though B is tempting too. Both A & B seems right at the first look. Argument suggest that the over all cost of health care will decrease. Also it says that some of the rare disease => rarest . so even if we can prevent the very few number of these rare disease(rarest) how can it reduce the overall cost of health care? Hence i aint taking B . A is too straight forward and i guess thats why people are getting skeptical . Anyways.. can we have OA?

agree with C

I would go with E. If we go with the parallel structure of D, it should suggest that the mobile phone were becoming popular in last year , and hence " last year " should have been placed after "mobile phones becoming increasingly common" to cover both mobile phones and cost of wireless. D , as it stands, tries to parallel two events happenin at two different times. The second part of the sentence is in present tense and "mobile phones are increasingly common" in E, properly relate to it while telling something( plummeting of cost) which happened in past too. Having said that, while sounds better to my ears than With.

1. 2 parts of sentence do not give opposite ideas hence use of although, but not necessary. D it is. 2. Much debated question. I go with A . All other (other than A&C) use wrong idiom . it sud b Depict as. i take A for .. live..depict... also C tends to say as if hills are in the film abt american west. 3. In A , you are cutting the cost of previous years!!!C says corn yield is double coz cost were reduced. B correctly puts that yield has increased and cost this year are half those of previous year

OK.. i saw the post till the comma! lol classic case of thinking too much abt something, whn we get answer loooking at d other part!

A for me .. IN E , if its happening now, it was happening before too , many centuries back! so it can be taken care of while doing the calculations.

IMO A. would have been Prussia and (wud have) been quite wrong..

that => green fields => sourround pathwork=> bustles OA sud be A. agree with ur thinking greeky