A company that designs websites primarily for minority-owned businesse

To EMPOWERgmatRichC

I have the same problem as JarvisR. and Shrivathsan

Preserve Market Share(PMS) : 28 Respondents
Expand Customer Base (ECB): 30 Respondents

How can we assume 28 Respondents of PMS are in those 30 Respondents of ECB ?
Is there anything i am missing ?

Here’s my question point
If we try to solve/underatand question2 from the opposite side

Less than 25%-if here we assume maybe it’s ‘20%’
Then 459*26%=119
119*20%=23.8 ,after rounding it's 24
24people are also all included in the set of group which believe can maintain their market share(459*0.06=28)’-this maybe true/established

However, there’s a possibility that all these 24people also belong to a group of people who ‘all’ did not believe can maintain their market share-then question2’s assumption will be denied
I saw somebody said that Official answer is ‘supported’, well, like other students, I’m really confused about this Official answer????

Hi mimishyu,

Since this discussion is spread over several posts in this thread, I'm going to consolidate all of the relevant information here:

Based on the table (and the description above it), we can deduce that some people in this survey responded to MORE than one category. Here's why:

1) If you add up all of the percentages in the first column, you end up with a total of 110%. That would not happen if each person chose just one reason. Thus, some of those people chose 2 (or more) reasons.
2) The text above the survey states that the survey "...was designed to help determine what respondents see as the potential BENEFITS of adding a website". The word "benefits" is plural; if each person chose just ONE option, then the wording would have stated "...was designed to help determine what respondents see as the potential BENEFIT (singular) of adding a website".

Thus, while we don't know which people chose more than one option from the list, we do know that some of them did.

Question 2 from the set of 3 focuses on a COMPARISON: is one number (PMS) less than 25% of another number (ECB). Your calculations here are correct; we have....

Preserve Market Share(PMS) : 28 Respondents
Expand Customer Base (ECB): 30 Respondents

In simple terms, is 28 less than 30? YES - it clearly is. This does not change regardless of the number of people who are in "both" groups because the overall totals (28 and 30) will still be the same. You are given EXACT data/numbers to work with here, and no 'hypothetical' situation changes those numbers.

Even if you did not do that math though, you can still determine that Question 2 can be inferred based on the percents in each column of the table:
-In the Latino column...what is 25% of 26%? It's 6.5%...Is PMS less than ECB?... is 6% less than 6.5%?.....YES
-In the African American column...what is 25% of 29%? It's 7.25%...Is PMS less than ECB?.....is 6% less than 7.25%....YES
-In the Asian American column...what is 25% of 25%? It's 6.25%....Is PMS less than ECB?.....is 4% less than 6.25%....YES
-In the Native American column...what is 25% of 25%? It's 6.25%....Is PMS less than ECB?....is 6% less than 6.25%....YES

Since each individual column gives us a 'YES' result, summing up all of those numbers would also give us a "YES" result (we'd just be dealing with one big calculation instead of four smaller ones.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich

Can we really add up all? Cuz there is “no benefit” and “uncertain” sections too. So if we add up each every section, we include people who thinks that adding website is not beneficial. Thus, I simply thought that since there is only 27 percent of people who said it wasn’t beneficial, even adding 10 percent of people who are uncertain, the rate is below majority. And since we can tell that there is no one who didn’t answer the inquiry, b/c when you add up all the percentages it exceeds 100, I infer that majority of people think that was good for the biz.

Posted from my mobile device

For number 2, imagine there 100 items in group A, and 20 items that are in group B. Also, assume that anything in group B can also be in group A. In the absolute worst case, everything in group B is in group A. This means that fewer than 25% of the items in group A are also in group B (it would be 20%). IF we take other cases of when not everything in group B is in group A, the percentage of items in group A that are also in group B will just keep getting lower (still LESS than 25 %).

Do we need to calculate in these types of questions because it has only asked whether it can be inferred from the data?

In integrated reasoning, for something to be "inferred," it must be true. For example, if you can find a true or false answer for a question, if the answer is false, it is not inferrable. IR inference and DS differ in this way.

Bunuel EMPOWERgmatRichC - just wanted to confirm on statement # 3 ?

Statement 3 is Not supported because there is nothing in the table (now specific row) regarding % of people who concerned about losing market share.

The other rows (Expanding Customer Base and Preserve Market Share) are not the same as losing market share.

Could you confirm ?

Thank you !

The wording of the second statement is tricky and it leads some misunderstandings, especially one discussed for years.


How do we interpret this phrase? It should be such a set [0, 25%).

Let's take Latino respondents as an example.
Expand customer base—the 26% set
Preserve market share—the 6% set

A Complete Overlap

In this case, the 6% set is a part of the 26% set.
If we choose 25% of the 26% set randomly and compare the resulting number with 6%,
25% × 26% = 6.5% > 6%
we will conclude that the proportion we choose from the 26% set must be lower than 25%.
Otherwise, the number of people who care about market share will be greater than 6%.

Two Seperate Sets

The respondents who believe the benifit of expanding customer base have no faith in another benifit, and vice versa.
How many people can we choose from the 26% set and compare the resulting number with 6%? None. Is this number lower than 25%?
Sure, 0 < 25%
We can draw the same conclusion that fewer than 25% of the 26% set—in this case it's Zero—also believe yada yada yada.

I faced the most difficulty here:

Fewer than 25% of the respondents who believe a website could help expand their customer base also believe a website could help them maintain their current market share.

After tinkering a bit, I understood the logic behind this. So, the logic is simple. The maximum can be that all respondents believe this statement. That would be less than 20% [6/30 * 100].

It can also be the case that no customers are common between those who believe a website could help expand their customer base and those who believe a website could help them maintain their current market share. In that case, it would be 0%.

It's interesting to note that 0% customers are fewer than 25% of the customers. Hence, it is SUPPORTED.­

­1. A majority of the respondents believe adding a website could benefit their businesses. => Supported

By a quick look, we can see that for each ethnic group, the total for [No Benefit] + [Uncertain] is less than 50%
=> That means [Benefit] > 50%


2. Fewer than 25% of the respondents who believe a website could help expand their customer base also believe a website could help them maintain their current market share. => Supported
 
For [Preserve market share] category, 4x of each ethnic group is

• Latino: 24% < 26% in [Expand customer base]
• African: 24% < 29%
• Asian: 16% < 25%
• Native: 24% < 25%

That means even all those in [Preserve market share] categor are also in [Expand customer base] category, that doesn't add up to 25% (or in other words, fewer than 25%)


3. Only a small proportion of the respondents are concerned that they are losing market share. => Not supported

Losing market share is not mentioned anywhere

[quote="EMPOWERgmatRichC"]Hi JusTLucK04,

The percents in the table are specific enough to help you do a "comparison" instead of a calculation, but if you wanted to see the math, then here it is:

In the first column, we have 459 Latino respondents:

26% think that a website will help to expand the customer base:
26%(459) = about 119

6% think that a website will help maintain/preserve market share:
6%(459) = about 28

The second question in the set asks if the idea that the second number is LESS THAN 25% of the first number.

25%(119) = about 30. Since 28 < 30, this IS a reasonable/supported conclusion.

Now, performing these calculations is NOT really what this question is about (and it's not required either). The "shortcut" is to compare the percentages, since the percentages are both based on the SAME total number of respondents in the survey (and as such, THAT number doesn't really matter to this question).

In the Latino column...is 6% less than 1/4 of 25%.....YES
In the African American column...is 6% less than 1/4 of 29%....YES
In the Asian American column...is 4% less than 1/4 of 25%....YES
In the Native American column...is 6% less than 1/4 of 25%...YES

This is a constant, reasonable conclusion, so the answer to the second question is YES/SUPPORTED.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich[/quote]


Hi, what about the word "also" mentioned in Q2 ? It is asking specifically for the 25% of respondents of customer base agree that their market share can be preserved.

It may or may not be the case.
May be all those who agree for customer base expansion, might have told will not help in preserving the market share

[size=80][b][i]Posted from my mobile device[/i][/b][/size]