rainfall problem
-
kiennguyen
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:37 pm
-
Testluv
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1302
- Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
- Location: Toronto
- Thanked: 539 times
- Followed by:164 members
- GMAT Score:800
Hi kiennguyen,kiennguyen wrote:imo D. OA pls
Actually, choice D is mathematically impossible. This is because the range for moderate rain is something just over 1 inch up to 2 inches.
To test it, let's maximize rain per moderately rain in 1990 at 2 inches, and minimize rain per moderately rainy day in 1910 at 1.00000.....1 inch.
So if you had an equal number of moderately rainy days in both years, then the ratio of 1990 mod rain/1910 mod rain would be: 2/1.0000.....1. This already makes it mathematically impossible.
But of course, there were fewer moderately rainy days in 1990, which means there were more in 1910, so our ratio would really look like: 2/(1.00000...1+).
Which means it is mathematically impossible for the amount of rain that fell on moderately rainy days in 1990 to have been more than twice as great as the amount of rain that fell on moderately rainy days in 1910.
Last edited by Testluv on Thu Nov 05, 2009 11:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
-
kiennguyen
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:37 pm
thanks, Testluv! i didn't see your post before i gave my idea! your explanation is perfect. i hope you can help me out in the future!Testluv wrote:Hi kiennguyen,kiennguyen wrote:imo D. OA pls
Actually, choice D is mathematically impossible. This is because the range for moderate rain is something just over 1 cm up to 2 cm.
To test it, let's maximize rain per moderately rain in 1990 at 2 inches, and minimize rain per moderately rainy day in 1910 at 1.00000.....1 inch.
So if you had an equal number of moderately rainy days in both years, then the ratio of 1990 mod rain/1910 mod rain would be: 2/1.0000.....1. This already makes it mathematically impossible.
But of course, there were fewer moderately rainy days in 1990, which means there were more in 1910, so our ratio would really look like: 2/(1.00000...1+).
Which means it is mathematically impossible for the amount of rain that fell on moderately rainy days in 1990 to have been more than twice as great as the amount of rain that fell on moderately rainy days in 1910.
-
mehravikas
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
- Location: Sydney
- Thanked: 23 times
- Followed by:1 members
-
gettingready
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:27 am
Hello crackgmat007,
Thank you for your very detailed explanation. I was going for D. Although, I perfectly understood your explanation of why D is not correct, to me choice A still does not make sense.Could you possible deepen the explanation of why A is correct? Or is it more of " the best choice" out of the worst?
Thanks
Thank you for your very detailed explanation. I was going for D. Although, I perfectly understood your explanation of why D is not correct, to me choice A still does not make sense.Could you possible deepen the explanation of why A is correct? Or is it more of " the best choice" out of the worst?
Thanks
-
palvarez
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:43 pm
- Thanked: 22 times
- GMAT Score:710
I know why it doesn't take sense for (A) to be correct. But notice the modal quantifier "possibly". Possibly true is not same as necessarily true. (A) is not necessarily true, but possibly true.gettingready wrote:Hello crackgmat007,
Thank you for your very detailed explanation. I was going for D. Although, I perfectly understood your explanation of why D is not correct, to me choice A still does not make sense.Could you possible deepen the explanation of why A is correct? Or is it more of " the best choice" out of the worst?
Thanks
When it comes to D, it is not possibly true, which means "necessarily" false.
Not (possibly true) = (not possibly) (not true) = necessarily false.
-
heshamelaziry
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:49 pm
- Location: California
- Thanked: 13 times
- Followed by:3 members
Testluv wrote:Hi kiennguyen,kiennguyen wrote:imo D. OA pls
Actually, choice D is mathematically impossible. This is because the range for moderate rain is something just over 1 inch up to 2 inches.
To test it, let's maximize rain per moderately rain in 1990 at 2 inches, and minimize rain per moderately rainy day in 1910 at 1.00000.....1 inch.
So if you had an equal number of moderately rainy days in both years, then the ratio of 1990 mod rain/1910 mod rain would be: 2/1.0000.....1. This already makes it mathematically impossible.
But of course, there were fewer moderately rainy days in 1990, which means there were more in 1910, so our ratio would really look like: 2/(1.00000...1+).
Which means it is mathematically impossible for the amount of rain that fell on moderately rainy days in 1990 to have been more than twice as great as the amount of rain that fell on moderately rainy days in 1910.[/quot
Testluv, is this a LSAT type question ?
Thanks,
-
dare2dream
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:26 am
- Thanked: 1 times
