The question asks is whether the statement given in part 3 could be inferred based on the information given in table
. However, in IR one needs to find patterns based on all information in the table.
The way you mentioned would be the way to do it. However, it would be easier if you just did a cursory glance over the range of values in 1st column(%of 20+ year old in tertiary education) and 3rd column(public spending per student,tertiary education). You would realize that there is no value in the first column that is less than 20%. Hence, all countries with any public spending per student shown in the table will have percentage of 20+students greater than 20%. And hence, we would say that the statement can be inferred from the data. However, from the table we can see that as the average spending per student increases, the rank increases. So there are quite a few countries ranked above 107. However, only few have been shown. Also, it is mentioned in the passage that as the rank increases the number of 20+ students decreases. Hence, there might be countries with less than 20% of 20+students involved in tertiary education who might receive more than 20$ per student for tertiary education. The data might not be tabulated in this table. We do not know anything about those countries but since we cannot infer the whether such data might exist, the answer must be no.
Let me know if you need any further clarification.
has anyone tried the first question for table analysis from Maggosh Integrated reasoning guide ? http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-integ ... ning-ebook
I am stuck on part 3 ,
So I look up the number of countries which spend more than 20$ per student , which starts with Poland ( 20.20$ ) and goes up to Sweden (53.50$ ) , then I will check if any of those countries have less than 20% of 20+ year olds ?
Instructor at Aspire4GMAT
Visit us at http://www.aspire4gmat.com
Post your queries
Join our free GMAT course
New blog: How to get that 700+
New blog: Data Sufficiency Tricks
Press Kudos if this helps!