Hi Guys,
I have been reading Beat the GMAT posts for a few weeks now and love how supportive and responsive everyone is. This is such a great forum.
I am hoping I can get some help from everyone.
I have hit a question that I just can't rationalize for future questions I may have that are asking for similar information.
#48 on the OG Quant Diagnostic is a geometry question asking you to calculate the perimeter and area of the given rectangle. The first support in the DS question offers the diagonal measure. This is enough information to calculate the other two sides of the triangle (or the length and width of the rectangle). The triangle is a right triangle. There are no mysteries where the right angle is in the triangle. I think the information is straightforward enough to use my shortcut knowledge about 3-4-5 right triangles in this case. If the longest measure of a right triangle is 10, then the other two should be 8 and 6 using my knowledge of rectangles properties. Why is this not enough information?
The GMAC eventually builds the same answer in their explanation.
This is one thing I am trying to resolve from question to question. It seems like in some instances you should make logical assumptions to get your answer from both PS and DS questions . Using the information they give you you can take the question further to calculate the final answer...even if it isn't plainly stated. Then in other cases, you have to find your solution using only the information they give you.
What is the rule of thumb when attacking a question regarding stated information?
Or at least how is GMAC expecting me to evaluate the question?
I have been reading Beat the GMAT posts for a few weeks now and love how supportive and responsive everyone is. This is such a great forum.
I am hoping I can get some help from everyone.
I have hit a question that I just can't rationalize for future questions I may have that are asking for similar information.
#48 on the OG Quant Diagnostic is a geometry question asking you to calculate the perimeter and area of the given rectangle. The first support in the DS question offers the diagonal measure. This is enough information to calculate the other two sides of the triangle (or the length and width of the rectangle). The triangle is a right triangle. There are no mysteries where the right angle is in the triangle. I think the information is straightforward enough to use my shortcut knowledge about 3-4-5 right triangles in this case. If the longest measure of a right triangle is 10, then the other two should be 8 and 6 using my knowledge of rectangles properties. Why is this not enough information?
The GMAC eventually builds the same answer in their explanation.
This is one thing I am trying to resolve from question to question. It seems like in some instances you should make logical assumptions to get your answer from both PS and DS questions . Using the information they give you you can take the question further to calculate the final answer...even if it isn't plainly stated. Then in other cases, you have to find your solution using only the information they give you.
What is the rule of thumb when attacking a question regarding stated information?
Or at least how is GMAC expecting me to evaluate the question?
