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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
GMATLiveTeach Starts Oct 17
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Chris Peckover, 100th-Percentile GMAT Scorer

Oct 17 · Chris Peckover
Sat · 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM ET
Oct 20 · Chris Peckover
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Oct 25 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 1:00 to 4:00 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemand 5 seats left Start anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

long-term employees

Expert replies
by Nailya » Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:43 am
Of the 800 employees of Company X, 70 percent have been with the company for at least ten years. If y of these long term members were to retire and no other employee changes were to occur, what value of y would reduce the percent of long-term employees in the company to 60%?

This looks like an easy one, however, I am frustrated because my answer does not match the OA! OA is 200.
My answer 80
GMATPrep1 - 550
GMAT Prep2 - 590
MGMAT1 - 620
MGMAT2 - 640
MGMAT3 - 660
MGMAT4 - 680
MGMAT5 - 690
GMATPrep1 - 690
MGMAT6 - 720
Join the discussion
Source: — Problem Solving |

by scoobydooby » Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:02 am
70%*800=560 >10 years or Long term employees

let y out of 560 retire, so the resulting number of LT employees:
560-y and the resulting total number of employees: 800-y

(560-y)/(800-y)=60/100
=>2800-5y=2400-3y
=>2y=400
=>y=200
Join the discussion

by Nailya » Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:19 am
Thank you scoobydooby!
I forgot to take into account that the total number also decreases.
Join the discussion

by vittalgmat » Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:05 pm
Here is another way:

70% of 800 = 560.
What if the percent of longterm employees was 60%.
ie longterm emp = 60% of 800 = 360.

So the amount of longtimers that need to retire is 560 - 360 = 200.
Join the discussion

by Nailya » Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:33 pm
vittalgmat wrote:Here is another way:

70% of 800 = 560.
What if the percent of longterm employees was 60%.
ie longterm emp = 60% of 800 = 360.

So the amount of longtimers that need to retire is 560 - 360 = 200.
but 60% of 800 is 480. that's how I tried to solve it too, but the answer was 560-480=80, not 200. we need to take into consideration that the total number decreases too.
Join the discussion

by vittalgmat » Thu Apr 02, 2009 9:53 pm
Nailya wrote:
vittalgmat wrote:Here is another way:

70% of 800 = 560.
What if the percent of longterm employees was 60%.
ie longterm emp = 60% of 800 = 360.

So the amount of longtimers that need to retire is 560 - 360 = 200.
but 60% of 800 is 480. that's how I tried to solve it too, but the answer was 560-480=80, not 200. we need to take into consideration that the total number decreases too.
OOps!!! my bad. my approach is wrong..

thanks for pointing out.
Join the discussion