• Board contributors include instructors with "800" GMAT scores.
  • 95% of posts have replies within 24 hours.
  • Join for discounts with 800score, VeritasPrep and ManhattanGMAT


FAQ  - Register  - Search - Login 

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: GMAT Integrated Reasoning: Table Analysis
PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 6:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:48 am
Posts: 478
Image
The Democratic Party is trying to analyze and evaluate the results of the various elections. For each of the following statements select “Would Explain” if it would, if true, explain some of the information in the table. Otherwise select “Would Not Explain.

A. There were three major candidates running in the Governor’s race, while statewide races featured only Democratic and Republican candidates.

B. The Democratic candidate for President was a business executive.

C. There was no Republican candidate for the mayoral race in Washington.
----------
Hi there. Could someone please outline this question. Literally don't get
any of it. Thanks a lot.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: GMAT Integrated Reasoning: Table Analysis
PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:11 pm
Posts: 454
We have the table with percentages (the results of democratic candidates in various cities and on different levels). The task is to determine whether the given statements can tell us why the numbers are such and not the other.

For example, if statement A is a fact, it explains why the percentages in "Governor" column are lower than percentages in Presidential and US Congress columns. If there are two major candidates in an election, most of the votes will split between them, let's say 60% and 35%, or 55% and 42%, etc. However, if there are three major candidates, most of the votes will split between the three, for example 30%, 30%, 35%. Thus even the winner in a three-split can easily have lower percentage than a looser in a two-split.
We see that in these elections people like democratic party, so the lower numbers in the Governor column can be reasonably explained by statement A.

Note, that there can be other reasonable explanations. For example voters may simply not like the governor candidate. However we do not require statement A to be the only possible explanation.

Statement B is simply irrelevant on its own.

Statement C, on its own, works against the numbers in the table. It would explain, if the numbers were different, but not the given percentages.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL -
phpBB SEO
 
GMAT(TM) and GMAT CAT (TM) are registered trademarks of the Graduate Management Admission Council(TM). The Graduate Management Admission Council(TM) does not endorse, nor is affiliated in any way with the owner or any content of this site.