Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 21 Oct 2014, 09:18

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

I found this one, it is pretty good in a way. Jennifer:

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 226
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 35 [3] , given: 11

I found this one, it is pretty good in a way. Jennifer: [#permalink] New post 09 Oct 2010, 19:31
3
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

58% (02:16) correct 42% (01:25) wrong based on 317 sessions
I found this one, it is pretty good in a way.

Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993. The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.

Brad: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that Brad presents to Jennifer's explanation?

(A) In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.
(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos opened in Centerville.
(C) Most of the video rental outlets in Centerville rent videos at a discount on certain nights of the week.
(D) People often buy videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.
(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 410
Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 50

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 09 Oct 2010, 20:32
gautrang wrote:
I found this one, it is pretty good in a way.

Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993. The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.

Brad: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that Brad presents to Jennifer's explanation?

(A) In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.
(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos opened in Centerville.
(C) Most of the video rental outlets in Centerville rent videos at a discount on certain nights of the week.
(D) People often buy videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.
(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.


I cannot understand why the OA something else. I went with option A.

The conclusion or argument in the stimulus is -- The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama,. And Brad's objection is -- Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994 and his statement is defending Videorama. If we have to seriously weaken the force of Brad's objection we need to prove that the fall in rental numbers is directly or at least in good part because of Videorama.

Option A attacks Videorama and hence should be the correct option. Option E is in fact strengthening Brad's stance but pointing to a different cause in the fall of rental.

Any other thoughts ???
_________________

:good Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog :thanks

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 509
Location: Kolkata
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 66

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 10 Oct 2010, 05:08
ezhilkumarank wrote:
gautrang wrote:
I found this one, it is pretty good in a way.

Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993. The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.

Brad: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that Brad presents to Jennifer's explanation?

(A) In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.
(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos opened in Centerville.
(C) Most of the video rental outlets in Centerville rent videos at a discount on certain nights of the week.
(D) People often buy videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.
(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.


I cannot understand why the OA something else. I went with option A.

The conclusion or argument in the stimulus is -- The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama,. And Brad's objection is -- Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994 and his statement is defending Videorama. If we have to seriously weaken the force of Brad's objection we need to prove that the fall in rental numbers is directly or at least in good part because of Videorama.

Option A attacks Videorama and hence should be the correct option. Option E is in fact strengthening Brad's stance but pointing to a different cause in the fall of rental.

Any other thoughts ???



J: The loss of 10,000 rentals was all Videorama's fault.
B: That's not possible, since Videorama only sold 4000 videos.

That means brad's objection is based on the fact that 4000 is a smaller number than 10,000.

Thus to to WEAKEN brad's objection,COME UP WITH A WAY FOR 4000 SALES TO CANCEL OUT 10,000 RENTALS.

(a) is irrelevant to this issue.

(e) provides a perfect reason why the 4000 sales could, indeed, compensate for the 10,000 rentals: if the sold videos are loaned around, then each of them could cancel out multiple rentals.

Hence E.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 410
Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 50

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 10 Oct 2010, 06:49
suyashjhawar wrote:
ezhilkumarank wrote:
gautrang wrote:
I found this one, it is pretty good in a way.

Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993. The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.

Brad: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that Brad presents to Jennifer's explanation?

(A) In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.
(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos opened in Centerville.
(C) Most of the video rental outlets in Centerville rent videos at a discount on certain nights of the week.
(D) People often buy videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.
(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.


I cannot understand why the OA something else. I went with option A.

The conclusion or argument in the stimulus is -- The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama,. And Brad's objection is -- Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994 and his statement is defending Videorama. If we have to seriously weaken the force of Brad's objection we need to prove that the fall in rental numbers is directly or at least in good part because of Videorama.

Option A attacks Videorama and hence should be the correct option. Option E is in fact strengthening Brad's stance but pointing to a different cause in the fall of rental.

Any other thoughts ???



J: The loss of 10,000 rentals was all Videorama's fault.
B: That's not possible, since Videorama only sold 4000 videos.

That means brad's objection is based on the fact that 4000 is a smaller number than 10,000.

Thus to to WEAKEN brad's objection,COME UP WITH A WAY FOR 4000 SALES TO CANCEL OUT 10,000 RENTALS.

(a) is irrelevant to this issue.

(e) provides a perfect reason why the 4000 sales could, indeed, compensate for the 10,000 rentals: if the sold videos are loaned around, then each of them could cancel out multiple rentals.

Hence E.


But are your not making assumptions again in your answer choice by assuming that the all those people who own the videos and have loaned it to their friends have done it after purchasing the videos from Videorama. The videos could have been owned prior to 1994 or it could have been brought from some other store.

And how is that option A is irrelevant. If Videorama rented out more videos than it sold then it could explain for the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals.
_________________

:good Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog :thanks

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Posts: 237
Location: India
WE 1: 6 Year, Telecom(GSM)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 87 [0], given: 21

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 10 Oct 2010, 09:36
Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993.....It means Videorama was also included in them....does it make any sense?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Will Retake GMAT
Joined: 29 Jul 2010
Posts: 137
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Stanford '13 (D)
GPA: 3.11
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 28

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 12 Oct 2010, 03:29
ankitranjan wrote:
Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993.....It means Videorama was also included in them....does it make any sense?


This is something that confused me as well. Does these numbers include Videorama as well?
_________________

Re-taking GMAT. Hope the charm works this time.. :)

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 225
Location: Boston
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 81 [1] , given: 5

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 12 Oct 2010, 04:59
1
This post received
KUDOS
gautrang wrote:
I found this one, it is pretty good in a way.

Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993. The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.

Brad: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that Brad presents to Jennifer's explanation?

Jennifer claims that video rentals in Centerville decreased by 10,000 in 1994, and blames the opening of Videorama for this decrease, because Videorama sells videos cheaply. In other words, she's stating that everyone who would be renting videos is instead buying them from Videorama. Brad disagrees, citing the fact that Videorama only sold 4,000 videos in 1994. So even if every one of those 4,000 sales was replaced by a rental, the total amount of rentals still would have gone down by 6,000. What would weaken this argument?

(A) In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold. It doesn't matter how many videos Videorama specifically rented, because the total number of rentals still decreased by 10,000.
(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos opened in Centerville. Again, doesn't matter - Jennifer is discussing the TOTAL number of rentals in Centerville by EVERY store. So even if these stores opened, their figures are included in her argument.
(C) Most of the video rental outlets in Centerville rent videos at a discount on certain nights of the week. Irrelevant
(D) People often buy videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater. Irrelevant
(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends. Correct. Videorama may have only sold 4,000 videos, but those videos could have been loaned out to people who would have instead rented the movie, thereby decreasing the total number of rentals.
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Posts: 33
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [1] , given: 3

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2010, 00:50
1
This post received
KUDOS
I got it wrong too but I like the later reasoning. However, small assumption included in last choice is that most of people living in Centerville have their friends living in the same town!!

No??
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Oct 2010
Posts: 27
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Reviews Badge
Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2010, 03:16
good one..
E
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 225
Location: Boston
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 5

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 13 Oct 2010, 06:13
gmatexam2009 wrote:
I got it wrong too but I like the later reasoning. However, small assumption included in last choice is that most of people living in Centerville have their friends living in the same town!!

No??


The answer is telling you that these people will lend to their friends, you're supposed to take it as true. You'd be adding in your own assumption to think otherwise.
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 10
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [1] , given: 3

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2010, 00:36
1
This post received
KUDOS
What is the source of the source of this question? This is a pretty tricky question where A and E both have good reasons to be right I read it like this:

The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.

Thus if the 10,000 rental drop is coming from videorama, wouldn't it make sense for A to be a choice as well as E?

This is how it looks to me:

A: If 4000 dvds were sold, and it states there were more rentals than movie sales, then at least 4001 copies were rented out. This would account for the majority, and would take a big chunk out of the other company's business right?

E: If 4000 dvds were sold, and if those people were more likely to lend their dvds, then it would equate to at least one extra person watching that movie who would have rented.

This is where it gets tricky to me. Are we to decide that because of these people giving the video out to others, does that mean it is due to videorama or the consumer? Additionally, if we are to say this is due to videorama, wouldn't A be the choice? If someone can explain this based on the points made I would like to know why this is E and not A. Please provide the source of this question.
2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 225
Location: Boston
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 81 [2] , given: 5

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2010, 01:37
2
This post received
KUDOS
rooster wrote:
What is the source of the source of this question? This is a pretty tricky question where A and E both have good reasons to be right I read it like this:

The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.

Thus if the 10,000 rental drop is coming from videorama, wouldn't it make sense for A to be a choice as well as E?

This is how it looks to me:

A: If 4000 dvds were sold, and it states there were more rentals than movie sales, then at least 4001 copies were rented out. This would account for the majority, and would take a big chunk out of the other company's business right?

E: If 4000 dvds were sold, and if those people were more likely to lend their dvds, then it would equate to at least one extra person watching that movie who would have rented.

This is where it gets tricky to me. Are we to decide that because of these people giving the video out to others, does that mean it is due to videorama or the consumer? Additionally, if we are to say this is due to videorama, wouldn't A be the choice? If someone can explain this based on the points made I would like to know why this is E and not A. Please provide the source of this question.


You're misunderstanding the argument. The argument isn't that Videorama rented or sold 10,000 videos that would have come as rentals from other stores. The argument is that the total of ALL video rentals (including whatever Videorama rented) in the area decreased by 10,000 in the given year. So in 1993, people in Centerville rented a grand total of, say, 100,000 videos, but in 1994 after Videorama opened, people in Centerville only rented 90,000 videos. The number of videos that Videorama rented is irrelevant, because it's included in that 90,000 figure.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Aug 2010
Posts: 98
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 1

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2010, 17:54
why cannot be it C ..

I am confused with E.... Please give me a reply
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 225
Location: Boston
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 5

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 22 Oct 2010, 01:57
vitamingmat wrote:
why cannot be it C ..

I am confused with E.... Please give me a reply


Why would it be C? What would discounts on certain nights of the week do to rental sales?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 May 2010
Posts: 15
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 4

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 22 Oct 2010, 07:12
piyushagarwal wrote:
ankitranjan wrote:
Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993.....It means Videorama was also included in them....does it make any sense?


This is something that confused me as well. Does these numbers include Videorama as well?


IMO:
Jennifer's argument states that there was a decline of 10,000 from 1993 to 1994. The number of rentals has to be compared with the same quantity of video rental stores. Since, Videorama opened only in Feb 1994, it did not contribute in rental volume of 1993, hence should not be considered in the group that is being compared.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 225
Location: Boston
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 81 [0], given: 5

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 22 Oct 2010, 07:30
bhooshang wrote:
piyushagarwal wrote:
ankitranjan wrote:
Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993.....It means Videorama was also included in them....does it make any sense?


This is something that confused me as well. Does these numbers include Videorama as well?


IMO:
Jennifer's argument states that there was a decline of 10,000 from 1993 to 1994. The number of rentals has to be compared with the same quantity of video rental stores. Since, Videorama opened only in Feb 1994, it did not contribute in rental volume of 1993, hence should not be considered in the group that is being compared.


No it doesn't. All she says is that the total number of rentals in a certain city went down by 10,000. Videorama opened in that city, so it's part of that number.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 396
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Schools: ROSS PT 2012
WE 1: Mech Engineer - General Electric - 2yrs
WE 2: Lead Mech Engineer - Ingersoll Rand - 4 yrs
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 5

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 22 Nov 2010, 19:00
People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends
How does E account for the change in sales from '93 to '94?
E doesn't say that the people started lending after '93, they may very be lending videos to friends in '93.
Frequently loan them to friends - in no way account for the 6000 deficit.

Brad's objection is that Videorama cannot be singly held accountable for the loss of sales, hence there must be an alternate reason for this. Choice E provides that alternate reason and in a way lends force to what Brad is saying. Choice E in no way weakens Brad's objection.

I wouldnt agree with choice A either.
(A) In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold. Videorama sold 4000,and rented say (4001) what happened to the other 1999 videos?
1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Jul 2010
Posts: 229
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 44 [1] , given: 20

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 23 Nov 2010, 20:47
1
This post received
KUDOS
I picked A but then realized it has to be E.

A is wrong for the reason mentioned above: what happened to the other 1999 videos?

In a 'weaken' question the burden of proof is just to present sufficient evidence to tilt the balance. Its like the legal standard used in civil cases: balance of probabilities -- just need to make it more likely; not beyond reasonable doubt (which is the criminal law standard)

E says "people who OWN"; another key word: "frequently" ---> these clearly suggest that that the 4000 videos sold resulted in owners who would then loan the videos around. This is a likely explanation for why Videorama alone is the culprit for the overall reduction in rentals. The 6000 most likely got loaned around and therefore ate into the rental market resulting in a fall in the numbers of rentals.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 396
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Schools: ROSS PT 2012
WE 1: Mech Engineer - General Electric - 2yrs
WE 2: Lead Mech Engineer - Ingersoll Rand - 4 yrs
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 5

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 24 Nov 2010, 05:25
I agree with you gmat101, and you summed it up really well:
In a 'weaken' question the burden of proof is just to present sufficient evidence to tilt the balance. Its like the legal standard used in civil cases: balance of probabilities -- just need to make it more likely; not beyond reasonable doubt (which is the criminal law standard)

Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993. Coupled with the fact that Videorama sold 4000 videos in 1994 - suggests that there has to be an alternate explanation. The most likely answer, I agree, is E: if most video owners (including those who bought them from videorama) frequently started to lend their videos - it could account for the drop in sales.

What bothers me is the question stem:

Brad: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that Brad presents to Jennifer's explanation?

Brad says(an objection if you will) there must be an alternate explanation for the decline in sales than just the 4000 videos videorama sold. Option E is that alternate explanation. The question stem is asking us which statement if true weakens that objection ( there must be an alternate explanation). Option E in my opinion strengthens that objection rather than weaken it.

Just a FYI - this a GMATPrep question and the OA is E
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 31

Kudos [?]: 278 [0], given: 2

Re: Jennifer Video rental [#permalink] New post 25 Dec 2010, 10:53
Very well explained.

TehJay wrote:
rooster wrote:
What is the source of the source of this question? This is a pretty tricky question where A and E both have good reasons to be right I read it like this:

The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.

Thus if the 10,000 rental drop is coming from videorama, wouldn't it make sense for A to be a choice as well as E?

This is how it looks to me:

A: If 4000 dvds were sold, and it states there were more rentals than movie sales, then at least 4001 copies were rented out. This would account for the majority, and would take a big chunk out of the other company's business right?

E: If 4000 dvds were sold, and if those people were more likely to lend their dvds, then it would equate to at least one extra person watching that movie who would have rented.

This is where it gets tricky to me. Are we to decide that because of these people giving the video out to others, does that mean it is due to videorama or the consumer? Additionally, if we are to say this is due to videorama, wouldn't A be the choice? If someone can explain this based on the points made I would like to know why this is E and not A. Please provide the source of this question.


You're misunderstanding the argument. The argument isn't that Videorama rented or sold 10,000 videos that would have come as rentals from other stores. The argument is that the total of ALL video rentals (including whatever Videorama rented) in the area decreased by 10,000 in the given year. So in 1993, people in Centerville rented a grand total of, say, 100,000 videos, but in 1994 after Videorama opened, people in Centerville only rented 90,000 videos. The number of videos that Videorama rented is irrelevant, because it's included in that 90,000 figure.

_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit


Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Re: Jennifer Video rental   [#permalink] 25 Dec 2010, 10:53
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 I found a good collection of Redundancy BukrsGmat 0 07 Jul 2012, 08:14
This is a good problem I found, though good to share. If a abhijit_sen 9 30 Jun 2008, 22:32
Usually I am pretty ok with CR but this one was way over my english_august 1 24 Nov 2007, 14:14
I know this one is pretty simple but I am pretty weak with Matrix02 3 10 Oct 2006, 10:34
1 I found this material in one of the websites. I found it Learn 0 06 Aug 2006, 04:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by

I found this one, it is pretty good in a way. Jennifer:

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 38 posts ] 



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.