I am not sure what is this happening. Before I post, I cannot see my earlier post. But after I post, I see multiple postings. I am not why is this happening. I am posting my answers the same as I did before. Please help me fix this problem.

Quantitative Question 9 (

Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary)

Answer E:

If n = 14,444, which of the following operations will not yield a number that is divisible by 11?A) n - 1

B) n + 10

C) n - 100

D) n + 100,000

E) n - 100,000[/quote]

My approch was to solve the question first.

n = 14444 and we need to find value which will not be divisible by 11.

check for 14444 first.

14444/11 gives remainder of 1

so

option 1 => n -1 will be divisible

option 2 => n +10 will be divisible

option 3 => n -100 = n - 1 - 99 => n - 1 and 99 both are divisible by 11. Hence n - 100 will be divisible

option 4 => n +100000 => n + 10 + 99990 => n+10 and 99990 both are divisible by 11. hence n+100000 will be divisible

option 5 => n -100000 will not be divisible (you can conclude either directly or can calculate the same way)

n - 1 - 99999 = > n-1 is divisibe and 99990 is divisible but not 99999. 99999 will give a remainder of 9.

Verbal Question 10 (

Veritas Prep 10 Year Anniversary)

Answer B:

College football recruiting services rank incoming players on a scale of 1-star (not a highly sought-after prospect) to 5-star (considered to be the best players). Recently a service attempted to validate its rankings by assigning star ratings to players upon completion of their careers to determine the accuracy of the initial rankings. The survey averaged the post-career ratings of each player and found that 5-star players’ final average was 4.46, compared with 3.98 for 4-stars and 3.11 for 3-stars. This suggests that the rankings services do not effectively judge high-end talent as well as they judge players in the middle of the range.

Which of the following identifies a problem with the service’s attempt to validate its rankings?

(A) Players at certain positions might be harder to judge at a younger age than players at other positions

- This choice talks about the position of the player but there is no discussion of the position in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at the same position during recruitment proecess and during their career.

(B) A five-star scale does not allow the most elite players to overperform their initial ranking

- This choice mentions that players with five-star ratings were not allowed to overperform in their initial rankings. All the other initial assumptions apply here. If premises assumes that change of school is in scope or if premises assumes that change of school is not in scope.

(C) Players may change positions over their careers and be judged at multiple different positions

- This chioce talks about the position of the player. There is no discussion in the premises. Unless specified, it can be assumed that players were playing at different positions during recruitment proecess and during their career. To confirm that, if the players may change the positions than why is this discrepency in ratings of five-star players and not with other players.

(D) Some players transfer to different schools and therefore need to change their playing styles

- This chioce talks about the chage of school. There are two scenarios here. First, if we restrict the scope till the first college, then those players who were transferred to other school are out of scope to be considered. Second, if we wont restrict the scope, then it does not matter what position the players play as the point of position is not mentioned in the premises.

(E) Because of differences in strength training programs at different schools, players may develop at different rates

- This choice talks about the difference in training programs. The question asks about the problem in service's attempt to validate. The explaination of two scenarios discussed in D can be added here also. [/quote]