-
Target Test Prep's 2024 GMAT Focus Edition prep is discounted for the BTG community!
Redeem
The GMAT Official Guides 2017 Edition - Part 2
The new Official Guide books have landed! In part 1, we talked about the changes to the quant portions of the guides.
Already read that part? Then lets talk about those interesting problems I mentioned last time! Note: I cant reprint the problems here for copyright reasons. You will actually have to have a copy of the book in order to follow along. If you dont have a copy, skip ahead to part 3, where well talk about verbal.
Note: I strongly recommend that you not read this until you have worked on these problems yourself! If you can figure out whats going on yourself, the lesson will stick much better in the end. :)
Big Book #116 and #140
Guiding principle: Do NOT do textbook math. Work backwards.
My colleague Whitney Garner and I both snorted when we saw the first one of these, #116. The math is truly ridiculous unless you approach it as a real-world problem, not a textbook math problem. The problem talks about 1/3 of the total, but we dont have a real number for the total (we only know its [pmath]37 + x + 32[/pmath]). So the math could get crazy messy unless you work backwards from the answer choices. Even then, the math is messy unless you also estimate at one point.
So lets take answer (B) 9. (When working backwards, start with B or D.) If [pmath]x = 9[/pmath], then there are a total of 78 marbles. One-third are blue, so 78/3 = 26. Now we have to test these numbers with the percentages listed in the final column to see whether we have a match. Dont calculate 10.8% of anythingestimate! (By the way it makes sense that you can do this because you shouldnt have only part of a marble )
A little more than 10% of 37 is 4. 50% of 32 is 16. And 66.7% of [pmath]x = 9[/pmath] is 6. Does that add up right? Yep. 26 blue ones. Weve found the answer!
#140 is equally weird until you treat the answer choices as your starting point. The question asks for the least and greatest possible values of [pmath]n[/pmath]. Look at those answers.
There are only three possibilities for the least value: 0, 1, or 2. Since they're asking for the least, try the smallest one (0) first to see whether its possible.
Once you figure out whether the lower bound is 0, 1, or 2, that leaves you with either one or two remaining answers. At most, youll need to test one of the upper bound numbers and youre done. (This time, test the larger number first, since youre looking for the greatest possibility.)
Big Book #194 and #283:
Guiding principle: know how to think about probability.
#194 is a PS problem and the answers range from really small to just under half to just over half to decently bigger than half. So you might be able to narrow down by estimating.
Pretend youre the one going camping. Hows it going to work out?
Saturday: no rain
Sunday: no rain
Monday: rain!
The probability of rain is 0.2, so the probability of no-rain is 0.8. Youve got a really good chance to stay on Saturday. On Sunday, theres a decent chance that you can still stay but its a bit worse than it was solely on Saturday. Still more than 50% though.
It does rain Monday, however, so youve got to factor in that low probability of 0.2. That should drop your odds below half. Answers (D) and (E) are out and even (C) is probably too close to half. And (A) is vanishingly small, so its probably (B).
The actual math would be (0.8)(0.8)(0.2) for the scenario described (no rain, no rain, rain). Ignore the decimals and multiply out the numbers: (8)(8)(2) = 128. Only one answer matches that digit sequence: (B)!
The second problem here, #283, is a DS. Lets call a job offer a Yes answer (ie, yes the company wants Jill). In order to calculate the probability, we need to know the probability of earning a Yes from each, or (Yes)(Yes).
Notice that the statements combine the info about the two companies. Statement (1) is the equivalent of (No)(No). What are the other possible outcomes?
(No)(No)
(Yes)(No)
(No)(Yes)
(Yes)(Yes)
So statement (1) doesnt give us enough to get to (Yes)(Yes). What about statement (2)?
Interesting! This one is (Yes)(No) + (No)(Yes). She gets an offer from the first one but not the second one or she gets an offer from the second one but not the first one.
By itself, thats not enough, but it you put the two statements together, you have the probabilities for three out of the four possible scenarios.
All of the possible scenarios must add up to a probability of 1, so you can subtract the other three scenarios to find the probability of the one desired scenario (Yes)(Yes). Sufficient! The answer is (C).
In both cases, these two problems are medium to higher-level, but they dont require crazy calculations. They do require, though, that you know how to think about probability in general. For instance, if you know the probability of all possible scenarios except for one, then you can always find the probability of the one missing scenario.
Big Book #310 and #???
Guiding principle: try to use what youve already figured out to help give you a boost on harder problems.
This is the one where I wouldnt tell you the second question number beforeI suggested you try to find something similar to 310 yourself. I'll be honest: this was a really challenging assignment. If you can do this, you have a good shot to get a really high quant score on the GMAT.
To me, these two were the most intriguing of all of the new quant problems. I havent seen prior problems test these principles in quite this way. Lets start with the first one, 310. When I first saw it, I wanted to throw in the towel. Even just Testing Cases was going to be really tedious and annoying on this one.
I knew, though, that this test doesnt ever require us to do super-tedious math. So I took another look at what they gave me and realized there was a really interesting hidden pattern.
The question stem asks me to add the same value, n, to each of 3 numbers. Thats a really weird request, so it caught my attention. I noticed that, since Im adding [pmath]n[/pmath]to each one, the differences between those three numbers never change. 94 is 25 larger than 69 and [pmath]94 + n[/pmath] is 25 larger than [pmath]69 + n[/pmath]. I had no idea what that meant; I just noticed it.
Statement (1) brings in what seems like crazy info: [pmath]69 + n[/pmath] and [pmath]94 + n[/pmath] both represent the squares of two consecutive integers.
Ah! Thats what did it for me. I already knew another principle that Ill explain to you right now. Square some consecutive positive integers. Notice anything?
1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49,
As you get bigger, the difference between the numbers always gets larger. The difference between 1 and 4 is 3, the difference between 4 and 9 is 5, and the difference between 9 and 16 is 7. And that keeps going. The key detail: each pair of consecutive integers-squared has its own unique difference.
So [pmath]69 + n[/pmath] and [pmath]94 + n[/pmath] represent the squares of two consecutive integers. Whatever those two squares are, they are 25 apart. Their difference is 25. Theres only one pair of positive consecutive integers-squared that are 25 apart. (Im not going to go figure out what they are, of course. This is DS. But I know from the pattern that there can be only one pairing with a difference of 25.) Done! Sufficient.
What about statement (2)? Same deal. This time, weve got two different numbers (and a difference of [pmath]121 - 94 = 27[/pmath]), but the same principle: theres only one pairing of consecutive integers-squared that has a difference of 27. Sufficient!
Which other problem later in this same chapter touches on similar principles? Drum-roll please: its 327. Check it out.
In this case, though, the problem cannot be solved via the given information. The two statements each tell you that one of the terms is a perfect square. The problem mentions nothing about the two terms being consecutive, though, nor could they be, since the difference between consecutive squares is always odd and the difference between the two terms here is 24, an even number.
Each statement cant be sufficient by itself because the other term could be a non-integer; there are infinite possibilities. That knocks out answers (A), (B), and (D). The real question is whether putting the two statements together will narrow things down to just one possible value.
At this point, its a judgment call whether you want to take the time to see whether you really can find two different cases (using real numbers). Its tricky on this problem, since both [pmath]x[/pmath] and [pmath]x + 24[/pmath] have to be perfect squaresbut that right there is your clue. Test out small perfect squares to find ones that are exactly 24 apart and don't bother trying to test consecutive pairings, since you know those will be an odd number apart, not an even number. Try numbers that are 2 apart, 4 apart, 6 apart
1 and 3 are too close for their squares to be 24 apart. What about 1 and 5? Bingo! That pairing actually works.
What about 2 and 4 or 3 and 5? Too close. 4 and 6? Almost 5 and 7? Bingo! At least two pairings work, so even together, these guys arent sufficient. The answer is (E).
You could also just gamble that, without the consecutive constraint, chances are that more than one combo workssince it seems as though the constraint is now so specific that only one number could work. (ie, its a trap.)
The key takeaway: having thought through the first one already, I actually had a shot at figuring out the more complicated second one in a reasonable amount of time. If Id seen the second one first, I likely would have decided the problem wasnt worth it once I got to (C) and (E).
What about Verbal?
Next time, well dive into the verbal sections of the Big OG and the verbal review. In some later articles, Ill also provide you with lists of the new questions in each book.
Happy studying!
Recent Articles
Archive
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009