Problem Soving question : Similar question in ORG as well

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

Redeem

This topic has expert replies

Post new topic Post Reply

Previous Topic Next Topic

freedomfromIT: Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts; Posts: 6; Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:33 am

Problem Soving question : Similar question in ORG as well

by freedomfromIT » Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:54 pm

Of 40 applicants for a job, 32 had at least
5 years of prior work experience, 24 had
advanced degrees, and 16 had at least
5 years of prior work experience and
advanced degrees. How many of the
applicants had neither 5 years of prior
work experience nor advanced degrees?
A. 0
B. 2
C. 4
D. 8
E.16

How do we go about soving this question .I have seen similar question in ORG 12 revsion PS 169 0r 167 .Can any one guide on this?

Quote

Source: Beat The GMAT — Problem Solving | Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:54 pm

DanaJ: Site Admin; Posts: 2567; Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am; Thanked: 712 times; Followed by:550 members; GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:34 pm

There are two traits attributed (or not) to members of a group of 40 people:
- at least 5 years of experience
- advanced degree

Those that have at least 5 years of experience are made up of those that either have or do not have an advanced degree. Since we know 16 people hold an advanced degree and have 5 years of work experience, then 16 peoplee (i.e. 32 - 16) have the experience but don't have a diploma.

Those that have a diploma can be categorized in people with or without the required experience. Again, since you have 16 people with both traits, then in this case you'll have 8 candidates (24 - 16) with an advanced degree, but without work experience.

So all this brings you to:
- 16 people with both
- 16 people with experience, but no advanced degree
- 8 people with an advanced degree, but no work experience
- x people with neither

x will of course be 40 - 16 - 16 - 8 = 0.

There are of course other ways of solving this without going through the mental reasoning outlined above, but I've always had trouble getting the formulas to stick to my brain, so i always double check... When you have a group of objects with two traits, a and b, then you will get that:

total = (objects with a) + (objects with b) - (objects with both) + (objects with neither a nor b)

In this case:

40 = 32 + 24 - 16 + x =40 + x ---- x = 0.

Last edited by DanaJ on Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Quote

freedomfromIT: Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts; Posts: 6; Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:33 am

by freedomfromIT » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:39 pm

Kewl!!!! Thanks fr such a prompt reply .Di u have a chnace to go thru the PS 169 in ORG 12 rev ..Both are similar.So this last shortcut helps in solving that as well?

Quote

DanaJ: Site Admin; Posts: 2567; Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am; Thanked: 712 times; Followed by:550 members; GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:43 pm

I don't have the OG 12, so I can't say I've looked at them. But I can tell you one thing: if they're similar to the problem above, then using this formula will surely provide the correct answer.

Quote

hetavdave: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 77; Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:58 pm; Thanked: 4 times

by hetavdave » Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:36 am

DanaJ,
I thinking i am making some some stupid mistake somewhere but I am unable to trace out where i am going wrong. My ans was 0.

Can you please help me on this?

Attachments

reasoning.xls: (20 KiB) Downloaded 95 times

Quote

DanaJ: Site Admin; Posts: 2567; Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am; Thanked: 712 times; Followed by:550 members; GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:11 am

hetavdave wrote:DanaJ,
I thinking i am making some some stupid mistake somewhere but I am unable to trace out where i am going wrong. My ans was 0.

Can you please help me on this?

Actually, it was I who was making the mistake. After analyzing your spreadsheet, I realized that I'd considered the number of people who hold a degree as 16 instead of 24 (just a mix-up - I didn't read the thing properly). The reasoning was still correct and the formula applies, but I'd get a wrong answer. Thanks for the heads up!