gschmilinsky

There are 5 numbers it says, not 6, so 1+1+x+x+40=5*16 --> 2x = 38 --> x =19 option C. Personally, I would just plug numbers, it's a lot faster.

What is strange is they noted that the buggies were across from each other. So when initially reading the question I thought they were going to give the distance between and then ask how long it took them to meet. Interesting.

I'm going to explain my answer slightly differently than vgp, in order to develop a systematic approach: whenever you are asked a question regarding prime numbers, you (the test taker) should be thinking that all numbers can be broken down into their prime numbers e.g. 8 is 2*2*2, 28 is 2*2*7, 33 is 3*11 etc... Since it is given that y cannot be 3, it cannot cancel with the 3 in the numerator. Now why did I bring up in the beginning that a number can be broken into its prime numbers? Because a prime number cannot be broken down any further, and if 3 is a prime number already part of the numerator then x and y must cancel each other out or else the answer could be broken down further into 3 and whatever other number was used (remember the answer is an integer.) I know long answer but IMHO important to know.

Yep, remember d is given as positive

For me, personally, these questions are not helpful for the GMAT because they would not IMHO represent an actual GMAT question. GMAT questions tend to have whole numbers IMHO.

In my experience, PR tends to be easier than actual and MG tends to be harder than actual. MG tries to get you used to seeing crazy hard questions early on, which I tend to think is more indicative of the actual exam. In the actual exam the problems get harder, which we all know, but they get hard fast -- then maintain at that level until you mess up. Ideally you can handle the hard questions and miss only a few of those types, in which case you'll end up scoring very high. Missing two in a row, will throw you down to the rediculously easy bucket -- and it will take a long time for you take out of that bucket. The balance, of course, is your time limit and getting them right -- therein lies the rub!

The second sentence seems like a run-on sentence because before the comma there is a complete sentece and after the comma there is a a complete sentence. So the two parts should be separated by a period or at least a semi-colon. The first sentence is not a run-on because the prhase after the comma modifies the phrase before it.

I didn't have a "source." I think I just have seen the use of 'while' for long enough to know how it is used and in what context. ;-)

Erin is exactly right once again. I couldn't have said it better myself. Unfortunately, rules (like object of the preposition) are guidelines but they don't always work nicely to get you to the answer. GMAT writers are skilled at making sure you understand the nuances of what is right or wrong and when. I use those rules to guide me but then I take a step back to look at the context and whether it makes sense. You have to do both, if you want to do well on the GMAT.

Yes, that refers to 'vacancy rates'. The bad modifier: 'investing capital' is not correct for A. Yes 'which' refers to 'the effects'. 'of drug and alcohol abuse' is a prepositional phrase modifying 'the effects' i.e. explaining the effects better.

Is M = N? (1) M - N (2) MN

Thanks Gmater-1! I am not sure about mukkimouse or GMAT-HELP. I spoke to Manish about a month ago and he decided against grad school for now. I never retook the test - onwards and upwards, I always say. Regarding my avatar, that is not a picture of me. That is a picture of Andrew Wiles - the person who solved Fermat's Last math enigma. The things he had to do to accomplish that amazing feat were incredible. He basically locked himself in a room, with his wife periodically giving him food, for months and years.

Thanks Anita. I'm a hispanic male, who has been in the investment industry for over 15 years. I imagine my grades and GMAT score are typical for those who are normally admitted into the program, although I went to a state school. I was a CFO for three fairly large companies and now I run my own firm. I participated on TestMagic, as you can see by my posts, a lot back in 2005 and 2006.

MBA, sorry I should have clarified.

I am an old, old user of this forum. Thanks to this forum I did well on the GMAT. After not applying for a long time. I recently was told that I was accepted to UC Berkeley and Columbia. I am very excited because both programs are what I was looking for. Thanks for all the help along the say! -gschmilinsky

I am an old, old user of this forum. Thanks to this forum I did well on the GMAT. After not applying for a long time. I recently was told that I was accepted to UC Berkeley and Columbia. I am very excited because both programs are what I was looking for. Thanks for all the help along the say! -gschmilinsky

I have changed my mind. I think E is correct, because I think B has an idiomatic flaw in it. Specifically, "as much" seems unidiomatic. It should be either: Patience Lovell Wright became well known for... or Patience Lovell Wright became as well known for... as for... By adding "as much for" the sentence has superfulous words, right? Patience Lovell Wright became well known as much for...as for... This one was a hard one.

(A) is wrong because as written it forms a bunch of unrelated independent clauses. You need the "although" to transition properly. So the proper answer could be rewritten: There are no slopes without music, although skiers can choose among hard rock, soft pop, and “beautiful music” slopes. You can ignore the first part of the question before the semicolon, since a semi-colon neccesitates an indepenent clause and since that part of the sentence is not underlined. Just use that part as a foundation for the rest. Although I will grant you, I don't particularly care for the sentence even in its supposed correct form.

E is correct as Erin points out. 'for which' and specifically 'which' refers to 'homes' since usually relative pronouns (which) refer to nearer nouns. 'They' refers to the further noun 'Americans'.

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I think so if we assume that which refers to the object that I mentioned.

Took it my friend. May take it again, but don't really need to.

'which' is a relative pronoun and typically relative pronouns create relative (subordinated) phrases that modify a noun not a phrase. http://grammar.uoregon.edu/pronouns/relative.html . Let's assume for a second that 'which' refers to the object of 'reported' namely: 'drop in oil prices about oil inventory.' Don't you think that the article 'a' is needed in front of 'drop' i.e. 'The PI and the US reported a drop in oil prices;' That's problem number one I have with the question. Problem number two is that 'about oil inventory,' has ambigous phrasing. A more succinct and correct IMHO phrasing would be 'reflecting oil inventory' or 'caused by oil inventory' i.e. 'The PI and the US reported a drop in oil prices reflecting oil inventory' or 'The PI and the US reported a drop in oil prices caused by oil inventory.' Third problem I have with the question is the incorrect mix of tenses. Notice that the beginning of the sentence is in the past tense 'reported', and the subordinated phrase is also 'interpreted' in the past tense. Now think about that for a second. The sentence basically says that investors interpreted at the same time as the PI and US reported. IMHO a more correct way to write the sentence is to have the past perfect 'had reported' rather than the simple past tense 'reported.' So now let's substitute 'a drop in oil prices' for 'which' so that the sentence is written: 'a drop in oil prices some investors interpreted as the first indications that oil cutback by world producers began to act languishing the drop,' Does that make sense to you, because it sure doesn't make sense to me? First it's an 'indication' not 'indications'. Secondly, the word 'indications' requires either 'a drop in oil prices some investors interpreted as the first indications that oil cutback by world producers would begin to act... languishing the drop,' However, 'languishing the drop' doesn't fit here, right? Bottom line I do think this is a bad question or answer or both. C fixes a lot of the problems but indeed is not perfect either. It's the one I would have chosen.

Congratulations on the nice improvement!

If I understand your question correctly, all that that method does is capture a repeating pattern: 3^1 = 3 3^2 = 9 3^3 = 27 3^4 = 81 Then the pattern repeats. So 3^214 will end with 9, because 214/4 has a remainder of 2.

Congratulations and your post was good, you don't need a 700+ to write a good post IMHO.