# The GMAT Official Guide 2019 edition, part 2

*by*, Jul 11, 2018

Here we go, here we go! Welcome to part 2 of our little series on the latest Official Guide, hot off the presses; if youd like, you can start with the first installment of this article series. Todays post focuses on Data Sufficiency.

## Whats new in Data Sufficiency for the 2019 edition?

There are 26 new Data Sufficiency (DS) problems (and 26 were dropped).

As we saw for PS, most of the new problems are on the easier to medium side. There are still some quite hard older problems, but the fact that there arent many new hard ones for the second year in a row leads me to believe that we should expect to hear an announcement in the not-too-distant future about some new hard-question product (or perhaps that an online product has had more hard questions added to it?). If so, Im looking forward to it!

Six of the new problems are about Statisticssome easier ones around average and median, one that had some really clever wording (#326), and another that tested Standard Deviation in a way that I dont recall seeing before on published official questions (#290). More on both of those below.

Ratios are also covered in 6 new problems, most of which are on the easier side. And we can toss in a 7^{th}, harder problem that is about probability at a high levelbut you really need to understand ratios in order to be able to solve.

Anecdotally, Ive noticed that students in my classes tend to struggle with ratiosits not something we tend to see in obvious ways in the real world, even in quant-focused jobs. But understanding how ratios work can actually be really valuable in the business world, so I recommend spending some of your precious study time making sure you understand how the fundamentals work here.

Again anecdotally speaking, my students who have struggled with ratios have told me they really like the ratio table we introduce in our Foundations of Math strategy guideso check that out if you need a little work here. (See the Fractions, Decimals, Percents, & Ratios chapterlook for the stuff labeled Ratios at the end of the chapter.)

I didnt spot any other big trends in the remaining new problems, but I did quite like #301.

Want to try the three that Ive mentioned? Try them on your own first: #290, #301, and #326. Ill give some hints below, then talk about how I solved each one.

As before, I cant repeat the full text of the problems for copyright reasonsyoull need to get the bookor at least go view these problems in the Look Inside feature on Amazon. (Note that you can only look at a small number of pages in any one bookso you cant just use that feature to do the whole OG without paying for it. Besides, they do work hard to produce these problemsso we should pay for something thats of good value. :) )

If you want to use the Amazon search function, look up this book, click on the Look Inside link, and then use the following search terms (do use the quotes for the ones that have more than one word):

#290: history class

#301: Shana

#326: 9 of the 20 houses

## If youre stuck, here are some hints. But promise me: Dont look until you really need to!

**#290:** What is standard deviation a measure of? What about meanwhat does that mean? (Pun intended :D)

**#301:** Less than 48. Thats interesting.

**#326:** More than 9 of the 20?? Thats super-interesting wording.

## Need another hint? Here you go.

**#290:** The question asks for the *maximum*. Can you come up with multiple scenarios that fit the facts in the statements but provide different possible maximum scores?

**#301:** Dont try to write equations. Pretend youre Shana, in the bookstore, and youve got $47.99 in your pocket. Youre trying to figure out whether you can afford these three books. How are you going to figure that out?

**#326:** More than 9 is the same thing as at least 10. Out of 20. And statement 2 mentions *median*.

## Solutions

**#290:**

The question stem doesn't give us muchthere are 10 students, so there are 10 scores in the mix. Whats the maximum score? No idea, but the fact that theyre asking for a *maximum* already signals to me that Im likely going to need to Test Cases on this problem. Lets go take a look at the statements.

Knowing that the mean (average) score was 75 leaves open various possibilities. For instance, all 10 students could have scored 75. Or half of the students could have scored 70 and the other half could have scored 80.

See what we just did there? We tested two possible cases. Each case used the given information (10 students total, mean score of 75) but we came up with two different possible maximum scores, so the first statement is not sufficient to answer the question. Eliminate answers (A) and (D).

What about statement (2)? Standard deviation is a measure of the spread of the numbers. The closer together the numbers are, the smaller the standard deviation; the more spread out the numbers, the broader the standard deviation.

First, remember that youre supposed to forget statement (1) right now. If I only know the standard deviation but nothing at all about the scoring scale used (is it 1 to 10? 0 to 100??), I cant say what the maximum score was. By itself, statement (2) is not sufficient; eliminate answer (B).

What if we put the two statements together? Maybe this means the maximum score is 75 + 5 = 80?

It doesnt, actually. The calculation for standard deviation is super complicated, and the official explanationwhich tests cases, toogets into somecrazy calculations. So Im just going to tell you something that youll know forever. If I tell you (1) the number of data points in a set, (2) the average value of those data points, and (3) the standard deviation of those pointsthen you still cannot figure out the range of possible values, or the smallest or largest value, of the data points in that set. Lots of combinations are possible.

Well, there is one exception: if the standard deviation is 0, then you canbecause when the SD is 0, then every data point in the set has to be the same (and, therefore, the average is also equal to the value of each data point).

The correct answer is (E).

**#301:**

Look at the statements. They never give us real values for the prices of the booksits always either less than or one price relative to another price. So Test Cases here.

The most expensive book costs less than $17. For the sake of not driving yourself crazy, pretend the thing cost exactly $17. If you bought 3 books at that price, how much would you spend?

(17)(3) = 51, which is over your $48 budget. Now, the book was less than 17 but that means your three books couldve been $16.99, $16.98, and $16.97, which is around $51 (ie, over budget). Or the books could have been $4, $5, and $6, in which case you have enough money left over to take me out to lunch. Yay! ;)

I cant tell whether Shana spent less than $48, so statement (1) is not sufficient; eliminate answers (A) and (D).

What about statement (2)? Heres where my second hint comes in. Do *not* start to assign variables and write equations and ugh. Whip out an envelope and a penwere going to do some back-of-the-envelope checks on these numbers.

The cheapest one was $3 less than the second most expensive. So I could have spent, say, $3, $6, and $7coming in under my $48 budget. Or I could have spent, say, $50, $53, and $100totally blowing my budget. Nope, this statements not sufficient either; eliminate answer (B).

Put them together. The most expensive has to be under $17. (Which is annoying, so lets just call it $17 and remember to take off 1 penny at the end.)

The second most expensive has to be at least a penny less than the most expensive, which is annoying, so lets just call it $17 and remember to take off 2 pennies at the end.

And then the cheapest one is $3 less than that, so$14 minus another two pennies.

Oh wait. This is interesting. So in my first case, I did (17)(3) = 51. Which is the same as 17 + 17 + 17 = 51.

Now, Ive got 17 + 17 + 14which is 3 less, or 48. Ohand then I need to take off a few pennies. Wow! Shana did indeed spend less than $48 on her three books.

Statements (1) and (2) together are sufficient to answer the question. The correct answer is (C).

**#326:**

The question stem already mentions the concept of average and then asks that really weird more than 9 of the 20 thing. More than 9 is the same thing as at least 10 and theyve already brought up statistics, so now Im wondering whether theyre getting at something around median and Im scanning the statements andboom! Yes, statement (2) says something about median.

If I have 20 numbers in a set, which ones do I use to calculate median? 20 numbers = annoying, so lets make this easier. If I have 6 numbers in the set, then I need to know (counting on my fingers here) numbers 3 and 4 in the setthose are the middle two. Number 3 is half of number 6 (the number of data points in the set) and 4 is just the next one up. So apply that pattern to the number 20: the number 10 is half and then I need to go one up to 11. I need data points 10 and 11haha, so *thats* why they specified more than 9. Because 10 and 11 are the relevant numbers for the median.

Okay, what else do I know? The average is $160k and there are 20 houses total, so I can find the sum if I want to (since average = sum / # of terms).

And what is the question really asking? Was house price #10 (if I were to write the numbers in increasing order) less than the average? Or was at least one half of the calculation for the median less than the average?

Lets find out!

Statement (1) tells me the price of the most expensive house, or #20 on the list if I write them in increasing orderand that is totally useless when Im trying to figure out something about the #10 house. This one isnt sufficient; eliminate answers (A) and (D).

Okay, statement (2)the median was $150k. How do I calculate median again? Oh, right, find the average of houses #10 and #11. And remember that #10 has to be less than #11since were doing median, which means they have to be written in increasing order. So the median is the average of just these two housesand that median is only $150kso house #10s price had to be less than $150k. Or, at the most, equal to $150k, if houses #10 and #11 cost the same amount.

And thats less than the overall overage of $160k, so yes, at least 10 of the houses had prices that were less than $160k. Sufficient!

The correct answer is (B).

How are you feeling? Ready for a change of pace? Lets move on to verbaljoin me next time for a run-down of the verbal sections of the new OG.

###### Recent Articles

###### Archive

- 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