BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

Evco and Radeco

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:44 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 3 times
by gmat009 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:32 am
In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also applied for a job at Radeco, and Evco and Radeco each offered jobs to half of these applicants. Therefore, every one of these applicants must have been offered a job in 1990.
The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions about these job applicants?
(A) All of the applicants were very well qualified for a job at either Evco or Radeco.
(B) All of the applicants accepted a job at either Evco or Radeco.
(C) None of the applicants was offered a job by both Evco and Radeco.
(D) None of the applicants had applied for jobs at places other than Evco and Radeco.
(E) None of the applicants had previously worked for either Evco or Radeco.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:51 am
Thanked: 8 times
GMAT Score:680

Re: Evco and Radeco

by Fiver » Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:43 am
gmat009 wrote:In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also applied for a job at Radeco, and Evco and Radeco each offered jobs to half of these applicants. Therefore, every one of these applicants must have been offered a job in 1990.
The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions about these job applicants?
(A) All of the applicants were very well qualified for a job at either Evco or Radeco.
(B) All of the applicants accepted a job at either Evco or Radeco.
(C) None of the applicants was offered a job by both Evco and Radeco.
(D) None of the applicants had applied for jobs at places other than Evco and Radeco.
(E) None of the applicants had previously worked for either Evco or Radeco.
C is my pick as for all to be offered a job, there must be no intersection in the offers made by Radeco and Evco, in other words no single candidate must get 2 simultaneous offers.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:23 am
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 2 times

Re: Evco and Radeco

by banker1 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:01 am
Fiver wrote:C is my pick as for all to be offered a job, there must be no intersection in the offers made by Radeco and Evco, in other words no single candidate must get 2 simultaneous offers.
Agree w/ Fiver.

(A), (D), and (E) are out of scope. Qualifications, applications other than at these two companies, prior work experience have nothing to do with the passage.

(B) is irrelevant, the passage is about job offers, not job acceptance.

(C) is the right answer. If each company offered a position to 50% of the job pool and everyone got an offer, then no employee could receive more than one offer.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 10:50 am
Thanked: 3 times

by EricLien9122 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:07 am
This question kind of reminds me a overlapping math question. if either place was offering a job to 50% of their applicants, then none of the offering has any overlapping between both companies (in order to add up 100%).


C sound the best in my opinion.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:44 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 3 times

by gmat009 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:03 am
What's wrong with A. He is asking for assumption and his conclusion is
"Therefore, every one of these applicants must have been offered a job in 1990. "
if we negate A then we cannot reach that conclusion
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 10:50 am
Thanked: 3 times

by EricLien9122 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:45 am
GMAT009:

It is out of scope, because qualification has nothing to do with the offering jobs. But let's use an example to show it:

total applicants: 2 people (both are qualified as stated in assumption).
company A offers job to person #1 (50% offering rate).
company B offers job to person #1 (50% offering rate).

then...

Not everyone got an job offer, because person #2 didn't get a job offer from either place.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:28 pm

by lalitgmat » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:56 am
Exactly, then as per "C", #1 has a job offer by both Evco and Radeco.
So only assumption left is #1 or #2 were job-less before they applied to Evco OR Radeco.

Hence "E"
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:23 am
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 2 times

by banker1 » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:59 am
lalitgmat wrote:Exactly, then as per "C", #1 has a job offer by both Evco and Radeco.
So only assumption left is #1 or #2 were job-less before they applied to Evco OR Radeco.

Hence "E"
Actually doesn't (C) state #1 would get a job offer from Evco, NOT Radeco and # 2 would get a job offer from Radeco, NOT Evco?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:55 pm
imo:C
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 871
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 7:48 am
Thanked: 48 times

by stop@800 » Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:23 am
All of the applicants were very well qualified for a job at either Evco or Radeco.
Lets assume all were not well qualified

Total ppl applied = 100
qualified = 90

E offered job to 50 [out of 90]
and R offered job to 50 [out of 90]
that means 10 people got job in both

Hope this helps!!
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:33 am
GMAT Score:490

by tuscan21 » Mon Apr 13, 2009 8:41 am
I cannot understand why it's A and not C. Can anybody elaborate on this?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:50 am

by delhiboy1979 » Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:47 am
It has got to be C, it cannot be A. what has qualification got to do with anything in the argument.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:51 am
Thanked: 1 times

by rseeker2 » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:55 am
agree with Delhi boy...

say 50 were offered a job by Evco... only if the other 50 were offered a job by Radeco... would all the 100 have a job.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:00 am

by samanthaJ79 » Sun May 15, 2016 5:08 am
C is favorit
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1