• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Get 300+ Practice Questions

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Practice Test & Review
How would you score if you took the GMAT

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5 Day FREE Trial
Study Smarter, Not Harder

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
Register now and save up to \$200

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Trial & Practice Exam
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

## Problem with IR from OG 13

This topic has 1 expert reply and 4 member replies
undefeated Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Joined
05 Sep 2011
Posted:
2 messages

#### Problem with IR from OG 13

Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:40 pm
Hi,

I was practicing IR from Willey.com (the access came with OG 13), when I came across this problem. At the first glance, this seemed pretty easy. But I selected Inferable for 7B, which is wrong.

In my view, I can obviously infer from the given data that the given statement in 7B is wrong (in fact, this should be overpriced). So can't I say this is reasonably inferable from the given data? What's wrong with my reasoning?

Attachments

Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!

### GMAT/MBA Expert

Whitney Garner GMAT Instructor
Joined
21 Sep 2010
Posted:
273 messages
Followed by:
73 members
154
GMAT Score:
770
Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:38 pm
Hi undefeated (and everyone else following this thread)!

I thought I would start by re-posting the IR prompt in full (both tabs together) so people can try these problems out on their own!

TABS:
ttp://postimage.org/image/rbkblkq8h/" target="_blank">ttp://postimage.org/image/99j9o4twb/" target="_blank">

QUESTIONS:

#7:
ttp://postimage.org/image/yw01zix7v/" target="_blank">
#8:
ttp://postimage.org/image/liqsyap6d/" target="_blank">
#9:
ttp://postimage.org/image/hnywc7uxn/" target="_blank">

Okay, let's take a read and see what we can generally understand from the short paragraph and table. The following are the notes I jotted down from each tab - just something quick to make sure I had a clear understanding of what was offered, and the I could sit back and try to connect the dots...

"Kenyan IPO Pricing" Tab

"Kenyan IPOs, 1994-2008" Tab

Can I put it together??
Okay, I see a couple of patterns so I just want to make sure I'm clear in my understanding:

- I "hear" that basically all of the Kenyan companies started the bidding WAY too low on their IPOs (an average of 50% too low). But I only "see" (from the table) 3 companies that were over 50% (it is a couple of nasty outliers that are really driving this number).

- I also understand that during this study they tried to figure out if any factors about the companies explained why they set their initial prices where they did. So they assumed that bigger and older firms, with more prestige and with excited investors would start their prices out higher than smaller, newer, less prestigious firms with less excited investors. But that isn't what they found...
...(a) The size and age of the firm was pretty unrelated to initial price
...(b) if investors were MORE interested, the price actually started out LOWER
...(C) if the board was MORE prestigious, the price actually started out LOWER

**NOTE**
It is totally okay that we have spent a bit more time here than on other prompts. Remember that MSR (Multi-Source Reasoning = the ones with the tabs) will typically have 3 questions that accompany it so we should expect to have 7.5 minutes to budget (2.5 min per question).

Now we're ready for the questions!

7A: "IPOs of firms with prestigious boards were more likely to be underpriced than those of other firms."
We know from the reading that IPOs with prestigious boards were more likely to be LOWER-priced than those of other firms, but we do NOT know that they are necessarily UNDER-priced!
NOT Inferable

7B: "Firestone East Africa set its IPO price slightly lower than it should have."
It is clear that Firestone actually set its IPO price TOO HIGH so definitely not slightly LOWER than it should have! Now, make sure you are clear about what it means to be inferable. If something is "inferable" then it can be shown to be TRUE given the information in the passage. We CANNOT show this statement to be true (it is clearly false) so we cannot infer it!
NOT Inferable

7C: "At least one of the firms examined by the researchers did not have an underpriced IPO"
We can actually show that 2 firms (Mumias Sugar & Firestone East Africa) did NOT have underpriced IPOs (the first was priced perfectly with closing prices and the second was overpriced). Therefore we can show that this statement is TRUE based on the information from the passage.
Inferable

8A: "The board of Safaricom was likely considered more prestigious than that of Co-Operative Bank at the time of their IPOs"
What do we know about prestige - well from our notes we know that what the researchers found was that the more prestige, the LOWER the IPO price. Does this match what this question is saying? Safaricom had an IP) of 5 while Co-Operative Bank had a price of 9.50. According to what we read, since Safaricom was cheaper, it was probably considered "more" prestigious.
SUPPORTED

8B: "Kenya Re and Eveready were approximately the same size firms at the time of their IPOs"
What did we read about the size of the firm as it related to the IPO - oh, they were NOT correlated, so we cannot tell anything about trends in firm size from relative IPOs!!
NOT Supported

8C: "When their IPO prices were set, investor sentiment was likely more favorable toward Kengen than toward Scangroup or Eveready"
What did we read about investor sentiment - OH, it was negatively correlated to IPO. So that means the MORE favorable, the LOWER the price. Let's check the table. Kengen was set at 11.90, Scangroup at 10.45 and Eveready at 9.50. This means that Kengen had a HIGHER price than either of the others so would be expected to have a LESS favorable investor sentiment. This is the opposite of what the statement gives.
NOT Supportable

9: "The discussion of the researchers' study of Kenyan IPOs refers to "board prestige" primarily to..."
Well, they talk about it as they try to figure out what causes different companies to set their IPO prices at different amounts. And it was one of the potential "variables" that went in the exact opposite direction of causation compared to what was expected. Check the answer choices...

(A) nope - it doesn't explain anything about sentiment, they were just in a list together
(B) hmmm, maybe but it doesn't say anything about accuracy of the variables
(C) OH, this one looks like what we just summarized
(D) what?? no, this is never related to investor interest (same issue as choice A)
(E) hmmm, now this is talking about the negative correlation to the IPO price, BUT did they mention it to intentionally demonstrate that fact? not really, they seemed to find it "surprising"

That means that we really can trust CHOICE (C) as the best choice!

SO SUPER long post, but what can we take from it - for MSR problems, take your time doing the following:

(1) Get a clear understanding of ALL tabs, both individually as well as how they connect (the connections are usually where most of the questions will live)

(2) Take a moment to make sure that you clearly understand what the Either/Or questions are asking you to evaluate (what does it mean to be "Inferable" or "Supported")

Hope this helps!

Whit

_________________
Whitney Garner
GMAT Instructor & Instructor Developer
Manhattan Prep

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Math is a lot like love - a simple idea that can easily get complicated

Thanked by: bynddrvn
Free Manhattan Prep online events - The first class of every online Manhattan Prep course is free. Classes start every week.
bynddrvn Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
16 Apr 2009
Posted:
33 messages
2
Test Date:
Summer 2015
Target GMAT Score:
700
Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:53 am
Thank you for clearly explaining your thought process to get to the correct answers.

### GMAT/MBA Expert

Whitney Garner GMAT Instructor
Joined
21 Sep 2010
Posted:
273 messages
Followed by:
73 members
154
GMAT Score:
770
Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:38 pm
Hi undefeated (and everyone else following this thread)!

I thought I would start by re-posting the IR prompt in full (both tabs together) so people can try these problems out on their own!

TABS:
ttp://postimage.org/image/rbkblkq8h/" target="_blank">ttp://postimage.org/image/99j9o4twb/" target="_blank">

QUESTIONS:

#7:
ttp://postimage.org/image/yw01zix7v/" target="_blank">
#8:
ttp://postimage.org/image/liqsyap6d/" target="_blank">
#9:
ttp://postimage.org/image/hnywc7uxn/" target="_blank">

Okay, let's take a read and see what we can generally understand from the short paragraph and table. The following are the notes I jotted down from each tab - just something quick to make sure I had a clear understanding of what was offered, and the I could sit back and try to connect the dots...

"Kenyan IPO Pricing" Tab

"Kenyan IPOs, 1994-2008" Tab

Can I put it together??
Okay, I see a couple of patterns so I just want to make sure I'm clear in my understanding:

- I "hear" that basically all of the Kenyan companies started the bidding WAY too low on their IPOs (an average of 50% too low). But I only "see" (from the table) 3 companies that were over 50% (it is a couple of nasty outliers that are really driving this number).

- I also understand that during this study they tried to figure out if any factors about the companies explained why they set their initial prices where they did. So they assumed that bigger and older firms, with more prestige and with excited investors would start their prices out higher than smaller, newer, less prestigious firms with less excited investors. But that isn't what they found...
...(a) The size and age of the firm was pretty unrelated to initial price
...(b) if investors were MORE interested, the price actually started out LOWER
...(C) if the board was MORE prestigious, the price actually started out LOWER

**NOTE**
It is totally okay that we have spent a bit more time here than on other prompts. Remember that MSR (Multi-Source Reasoning = the ones with the tabs) will typically have 3 questions that accompany it so we should expect to have 7.5 minutes to budget (2.5 min per question).

Now we're ready for the questions!

7A: "IPOs of firms with prestigious boards were more likely to be underpriced than those of other firms."
We know from the reading that IPOs with prestigious boards were more likely to be LOWER-priced than those of other firms, but we do NOT know that they are necessarily UNDER-priced!
NOT Inferable

7B: "Firestone East Africa set its IPO price slightly lower than it should have."
It is clear that Firestone actually set its IPO price TOO HIGH so definitely not slightly LOWER than it should have! Now, make sure you are clear about what it means to be inferable. If something is "inferable" then it can be shown to be TRUE given the information in the passage. We CANNOT show this statement to be true (it is clearly false) so we cannot infer it!
NOT Inferable

7C: "At least one of the firms examined by the researchers did not have an underpriced IPO"
We can actually show that 2 firms (Mumias Sugar & Firestone East Africa) did NOT have underpriced IPOs (the first was priced perfectly with closing prices and the second was overpriced). Therefore we can show that this statement is TRUE based on the information from the passage.
Inferable

8A: "The board of Safaricom was likely considered more prestigious than that of Co-Operative Bank at the time of their IPOs"
What do we know about prestige - well from our notes we know that what the researchers found was that the more prestige, the LOWER the IPO price. Does this match what this question is saying? Safaricom had an IP) of 5 while Co-Operative Bank had a price of 9.50. According to what we read, since Safaricom was cheaper, it was probably considered "more" prestigious.
SUPPORTED

8B: "Kenya Re and Eveready were approximately the same size firms at the time of their IPOs"
What did we read about the size of the firm as it related to the IPO - oh, they were NOT correlated, so we cannot tell anything about trends in firm size from relative IPOs!!
NOT Supported

8C: "When their IPO prices were set, investor sentiment was likely more favorable toward Kengen than toward Scangroup or Eveready"
What did we read about investor sentiment - OH, it was negatively correlated to IPO. So that means the MORE favorable, the LOWER the price. Let's check the table. Kengen was set at 11.90, Scangroup at 10.45 and Eveready at 9.50. This means that Kengen had a HIGHER price than either of the others so would be expected to have a LESS favorable investor sentiment. This is the opposite of what the statement gives.
NOT Supportable

9: "The discussion of the researchers' study of Kenyan IPOs refers to "board prestige" primarily to..."
Well, they talk about it as they try to figure out what causes different companies to set their IPO prices at different amounts. And it was one of the potential "variables" that went in the exact opposite direction of causation compared to what was expected. Check the answer choices...

(A) nope - it doesn't explain anything about sentiment, they were just in a list together
(B) hmmm, maybe but it doesn't say anything about accuracy of the variables
(C) OH, this one looks like what we just summarized
(D) what?? no, this is never related to investor interest (same issue as choice A)
(E) hmmm, now this is talking about the negative correlation to the IPO price, BUT did they mention it to intentionally demonstrate that fact? not really, they seemed to find it "surprising"

That means that we really can trust CHOICE (C) as the best choice!

SO SUPER long post, but what can we take from it - for MSR problems, take your time doing the following:

(1) Get a clear understanding of ALL tabs, both individually as well as how they connect (the connections are usually where most of the questions will live)

(2) Take a moment to make sure that you clearly understand what the Either/Or questions are asking you to evaluate (what does it mean to be "Inferable" or "Supported")

Hope this helps!

Whit

_________________
Whitney Garner
GMAT Instructor & Instructor Developer
Manhattan Prep

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Math is a lot like love - a simple idea that can easily get complicated

Thanked by: bynddrvn
Free Manhattan Prep online events - The first class of every online Manhattan Prep course is free. Classes start every week.
bynddrvn Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
16 Apr 2009
Posted:
33 messages
2
Test Date:
Summer 2015
Target GMAT Score:
700
Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:53 am
Thank you for clearly explaining your thought process to get to the correct answers.

tanviet Legendary Member
Joined
20 May 2008
Posted:
1404 messages
Followed by:
2 members
18
Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:55 pm
I see you do right on 7B. 7B should be "not inferable
I am confuse too.

### Best Conversation Starters

1 lheiannie07 120 topics
2 LUANDATO 62 topics
3 swerve 62 topics
4 ardz24 61 topics
5 AAPL 57 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

### Most Active Experts

1 Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

174 posts
2 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

173 posts
3 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

EMPOWERgmat

131 posts
4 Jeff@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

130 posts
5 EconomistGMATTutor

The Economist GMAT Tutor

130 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts