It is currently 20 Apr 2018, 11:15

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry,

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Sep 2016
Posts: 205
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2017, 07:41
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
mikemcgarry - hey Mike , can you show some path to us, I chose option A, just like the majority of folks. Can you provide some expertise please. Thanks
_________________

we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender!

Expert Post
3 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4675
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Aug 2017, 14:27
3
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
bkpolymers1617 wrote:
mikemcgarry - hey Mike , can you show some path to us, I chose option A, just like the majority of folks. Can you provide some expertise please. Thanks

Dear bkpolymers1617,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

This question is particularly brilliant--it's almost at the LSAT LR level. My only criticism is that it might be a notch too hard for the GMAT. Nevertheless, it is a wonderful question. Many Veritas questions are very good.

The argument has a clever and sneaky jump in the middle. First we get:
Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, Euroquest must reduce personnel expenditures by at least 15% over the next year in order to remain solvent.
Reducing the personnel expenditures by less than 15% definitely is not going to cut it. Maybe 15% will be enough, or maybe deeper cuts will be requires.
Then we get a funny leap:
In order to do so, Euroquest would have to cut entire divisions and benefits programs such that it would reduce personnel expenditures by a full 25% over the next year.
The implication is that, for whatever reason, it seems that there is no possibility of small cuts. For example, it might not be possible to give employees "partial health insurance"--either you give it to them, or you don't. Thus, of all the things available to cut, it appears that the smallest is worth 25%. That's the smallest cut that would "reduce personnel expenditures by at least 15%." Would this be enough to keep the company solvent?

This is a funny thing about the business world, and it highlights why it's very important to have an understanding of the business world for the GMAT. What happens when a company starts to tank? Sometimes, adjusting expenditures is enough to keep it afloat and it soon returns to a profitable state. Sometimes, the drop in revenue is due to the wild success of a competitor, and the company's revenue will continue to plummet further as this other company makes gains. Sometimes, the loss of revenue is due to a very poor product or a scandal of some kind, and sometimes a spate of lawsuits complicates the struggling company's position, dragging it further down. Sometimes, a company has the bad fortune of going into a struggling period just before the entire economy goes into a recession, where struggling companies are the first to crash. Thus, will reducing personnel expenditures by 25% guarantee the survival of the company? No. It's necessary, but not sufficient, for survival.

Now, let's look at (A) & (B).
A. Euroquest reduces personnel expenditures by 25% over the next year it will remain solvent.
This answer is a huge trap for people who don't appreciate the dynamic nature of the modern business world. Reducing the personnel expenditures by 25% is necessary for survival--without doing this, they definitely will not remain solvent. On the other hand, this is not sufficient for survival: doing this may or may not guarantee that they will keep their doors open. Thus, this is not a clear and certain implication.

B. If Euroquest cannot reduce personnel expenditures by 25% over the next year it will not remain solvent.
Yes! This captures the correct logical relationship. It is absolutely necessary for Euroquest to make these 25% cuts. We don't know whether doing this will be enough, but it can't get away with not doing this.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 01 Sep 2016
Posts: 205
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Aug 2017, 01:55
mikemcgarry wrote:
bkpolymers1617 wrote:
mikemcgarry - hey Mike , can you show some path to us, I chose option A, just like the majority of folks. Can you provide some expertise please. Thanks

Dear bkpolymers1617,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

This question is particularly brilliant--it's almost at the LSAT LR level. My only criticism is that it might be a notch too hard for the GMAT. Nevertheless, it is a wonderful question. Many Veritas questions are very good.

The argument has a clever and sneaky jump in the middle. First we get:
Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, Euroquest must reduce personnel expenditures by at least 15% over the next year in order to remain solvent.
Reducing the personnel expenditures by less than 15% definitely is not going to cut it. Maybe 15% will be enough, or maybe deeper cuts will be requires.
Then we get a funny leap:
In order to do so, Euroquest would have to cut entire divisions and benefits programs such that it would reduce personnel expenditures by a full 25% over the next year.
The implication is that, for whatever reason, it seems that there is no possibility of small cuts. For example, it might not be possible to give employees "partial health insurance"--either you give it to them, or you don't. Thus, of all the things available to cut, it appears that the smallest is worth 25%. That's the smallest cut that would "reduce personnel expenditures by at least 15%." Would this be enough to keep the company solvent?

This is a funny thing about the business world, and it highlights why it's very important to have an understanding of the business world for the GMAT. What happens when a company starts to tank? Sometimes, adjusting expenditures is enough to keep it afloat and it soon returns to a profitable state. Sometimes, the drop in revenue is due to the wild success of a competitor, and the company's revenue will continue to plummet further as this other company makes gains. Sometimes, the loss of revenue is due to a very poor product or a scandal of some kind, and sometimes a spate of lawsuits complicates the struggling company's position, dragging it further down. Sometimes, a company has the bad fortune of going into a struggling period just before the entire economy goes into a recession, where struggling companies are the first to crash. Thus, will reducing personnel expenditures by 25% guarantee the survival of the company? No. It's necessary, but not sufficient, for survival.

Now, let's look at (A) & (B).
A. Euroquest reduces personnel expenditures by 25% over the next year it will remain solvent.
This answer is a huge trap for people who don't appreciate the dynamic nature of the modern business world. Reducing the personnel expenditures by 25% is necessary for survival--without doing this, they definitely will not remain solvent. On the other hand, this is not sufficient for survival: doing this may or may not guarantee that they will keep their doors open. Thus, this is not a clear and certain implication.

B. If Euroquest cannot reduce personnel expenditures by 25% over the next year it will not remain solvent.
Yes! This captures the correct logical relationship. It is absolutely necessary for Euroquest to make these 25% cuts. We don't know whether doing this will be enough, but it can't get away with not doing this.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)



Dear Mike- First of all the post is just brilliant. I always admire the way you reciprocate to students' problems. Your posts are the most comprehensive of the lot. Always to the point and well articulated. Indeed, this one was a tough one. I learnt something very important through this question. Please correct me if you feel I am still on the wrong track.

If a statement says something like this- Mr. A should study at least 1000 hours to excel on the GMAT.


Then we can infer the following from this statement-
1. Studying for 1500 Hours will not guarantee Mr. A success on the GMAT. (Again, it might be possible that Mr. A is a laggard and needs to supplement his prep with additional practice despite studying for 1000 hours.)- So again, the statement that "Studying 1500 hours would guarantee success on the GMAT would fall short)
2. Mr A studied for 750 hours, so would not be successful on the GMAT.
(Now, this means that if he does not follow the prerequisite of studying at least 1000 hours, then he is definitely not going to succeed on the GMAT.)

Now, similarly in the above question, reducing personal expenditure was just one of the prerequisites for attaining solvency. However, it was not a guarantee that such a reduction was itself assure solvency. But again, not adhering to the prerequisite that happens to be 25% in this case would definitely not help in the solvency process.(as you mentioned that the company might not be able to cut social costs could partially and hence company's relevant figure might would be 25% instead of 15%)

SO MOVING FORWARD, I LL ENSURE THAT I AM LOOKING FOR CONTRAPOSTIVES CLEARLY. Thanks so much Mike :)
_________________

we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender!

Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4675
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Aug 2017, 09:22
bkpolymers1617 wrote:

Dear Mike- First of all the post is just brilliant. I always admire the way you reciprocate to students' problems. Your posts are the most comprehensive of the lot. Always to the point and well articulated. Indeed, this one was a tough one. I learnt something very important through this question. Please correct me if you feel I am still on the wrong track.

If a statement says something like this- Mr. A should study at least 1000 hours to excel on the GMAT.


Then we can infer the following from this statement-
1. Studying for 1500 Hours will not guarantee Mr. A success on the GMAT. (Again, it might be possible that Mr. A is a laggard and needs to supplement his prep with additional practice despite studying for 1000 hours.)- So again, the statement that "Studying 1500 hours would guarantee success on the GMAT would fall short)
2. Mr A studied for 750 hours, so would not be successful on the GMAT.
(Now, this means that if he does not follow the prerequisite of studying at least 1000 hours, then he is definitely not going to succeed on the GMAT.)

Now, similarly in the above question, reducing personal expenditure was just one of the prerequisites for attaining solvency. However, it was not a guarantee that such a reduction was itself assure solvency. But again, not adhering to the prerequisite that happens to be 25% in this case would definitely not help in the solvency process.(as you mentioned that the company might not be able to cut social costs could partially and hence company's relevant figure might would be 25% instead of 15%)

SO MOVING FORWARD, I LL ENSURE THAT I AM LOOKING FOR CONTRAPOSTIVES CLEARLY. Thanks so much Mike :)

Dear bkpolymers1617,

I'm happy to respond. Yes, with your statement about "Mr. A," you have drawn the correct conclusions.

Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 15 Jun 2016
Posts: 92
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Sep 2017, 12:58
Expert,

Kindly explain,
Argument conclusion: If A then B
Inference: If not A, then not B.

Is it correct?
Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4675
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Sep 2017, 23:04
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
VKat wrote:
Expert,

Kindly explain,
Argument conclusion: If A then B
Inference: If not A, then not B.

Is it correct?

Dear VKat

I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, that's a classic logic mistake, not a proper inference. Think about it.
If an animal is a horse, then it is a mammal. = true
If an animal is not a horse, then it is not a mammal. = false (it could be a dog)

If a shape is a triangle, then it is a polygon. = true
If a shape is not a triangle, then it is not a polygon. = false (it could be a pentagon)

If I am in New York City, then I am in the USA. = true
If I am not in New York City, then I am not in the USA. = false (I could be in Chicago)

If the argument's conclusion is
If A, then B.
Then the following two are not valid conclusions
If not A, then not B (the inverse)
If B, then A (the converse)
But this transformation is a proper inference:
If not B, then not A. (the contrapositive)

It's a textbook logical mistake to start with an if-then statement and infer either the converse or the inverse. The GMAT will not ask you about these terms and will not test this stuff directly, but you need to understand not to fall into these errors.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 15 Jun 2016
Posts: 92
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2017, 20:34
mikemcgarry wrote:
VKat wrote:
Expert,

Kindly explain,
Argument conclusion: If A then B
Inference: If not A, then not B.

Is it correct?

Dear VKat

I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, that's a classic logic mistake, not a proper inference. Think about it.
If an animal is a horse, then it is a mammal. = true
If an animal is not a horse, then it is not a mammal. = false (it could be a dog)

If a shape is a triangle, then it is a polygon. = true
If a shape is not a triangle, then it is not a polygon. = false (it could be a pentagon)

If I am in New York City, then I am in the USA. = true
If I am not in New York City, then I am not in the USA. = false (I could be in Chicago)

If the argument's conclusion is
If A, then B.
Then the following two are not valid conclusions
If not A, then not B (the inverse)
If B, then A (the converse)
But this transformation is a proper inference:
If not B, then not A. (the contrapositive)

It's a textbook logical mistake to start with an if-then statement and infer either the converse or the inverse. The GMAT will not ask you about these terms and will not test this stuff directly, but you need to understand not to fall into these errors.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)



Ya mike,
I got your point.
And i have also gone through the explanation which you have provided just above this post.
But i took a different route to solve this problem.

For me, A : If Euroquest cut expenditure by atleast 25%
B : it will remain solvent.

So as per your explanation, if not A, then not B is a wrong inference.
So how option B is correct which states that, If Euroquest cannot reduce its expenditure by atleast 25%, it will not remain solvent.

I hope you understood my point.
Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4675
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Sep 2017, 13:51
VKat wrote:
Ya mike,
I got your point.
And i have also gone through the explanation which you have provided just above this post.
But i took a different route to solve this problem.

For me, A : If Euroquest cut expenditure by atleast 25%
B : it will remain solvent.

So as per your explanation, if not A, then not B is a wrong inference.
So how option B is correct which states that, If Euroquest cannot reduce its expenditure by atleast 25%, it will not remain solvent.

I hope you understood my point.

Dear VKat,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, part of the problem here is that you translated a sentence in the prompt to an incorrect if-then statement.

The prompt said:
. . . Euroquest must reduce personnel expenditures by at least 15% over the next year in order to remain solvent.

This does NOT translate to
If Euroquest reduces personnel expenditures by at least 15% over the next year, then it will remain solvent.
That is a complete logical distortion of the original statement.

Consider these general statements:
A must be true in order for B to be true.
A is necessary for B.
These translate to
If B is true, then A is true.

Here, if we were going to translate the prompt sentence to an if-then form (not necessarily the best strategy!), the best translation would be something of this sort:
If Euroquest remains solvent over the next year, then it has reduced its personnel expenditures by at least 15% over that same period.
The contrapositive of this is:
If Euroquest does not reduce personnel expenditures by at least 15% over the next year, then it will not remain solvent.
Both of those statements have the same truth-content as the statement in the prompt.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 469
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Oct 2017, 01:47
Hi all,
Answer should be B.
Contrapositive works.

Premise: In order to do so, Euroquest would have to cut entire divisions and benefits programs such that it would reduce personnel expenditures by a full 25% over the next year

Remain solvent (A) -> reduce personnel expenditure by a full 25% (B)
ContraPositive: ~B -> ~A always true.
so, not reduce personnel expenditure by a full 25% (~B) -> won't remain solvent (~A)
But Reverse: B -> A (need not be true always)
i.e. reduce personnel expenditure by a full 25% (B) -> Remain solvent (A) (need not be true always)

Choice A: Exact reverse discussed above, Need not be true
Choice B: ContraPositive true.
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Jun 2017
Posts: 166
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
WE: Information Technology (Other)
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Mar 2018, 03:29
TaN1213 wrote:
Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, Euroquest must reduce personnel expenditures by at least 15% over the next year in order to remain solvent. In order to do so, Euroquest would have to cut entire divisions and benefits programs such that it would reduce personnel expenditures by a full 25% over the next year.

Which of the following can be logically inferred from the information above?
a. Euroquest reduces personnel expenditures by 25% over the next year it will remain solvent.
b. If Euroquest cannot reduce personnel expenditures by 25% over the next year it will not remain solvent.
c. Euroquest is unable to charge as much for its products as it was a year ago.
d. Euroquest competitors earn a higher return on investment for personnel expenditures than Euroquest does.
e. Some of Euroquest competitors will also have to significantly reduce personnel expenditures in order to remain solvent.


It is a tough one.
But if to be very attentive, we can see that A is out. An b is the only suitable one.

C, D, E are outsiders.
C. It need not to be true. Euroquest may be able to charge as much as it was a year ago. But it can have so big personnel cost, so it is not able to remain solvent. Out.
D. Maybe. But we do not know it.
E. Maybe. But it does not matter to us.

A. Trap. must reduce personnel expenditures by at least 15% in order to remain solvent.
So, maybe 15% will not be enough. Maybe even 25% will not be enough. Maybe even 50% will not be enough. So out.

B. Hard to choose, but really it is the only one.
Look at the second sentence.
In order to do so, Euroquest would have to cut entire divisions and benefits programs such that it would reduce personnel expenditures by a full 25% over the next year.
It says that we can not reduce personnel cost by 15%. We have to initialize procedure that will cut our costs only by 25%.
So, if Euroquest does not do it, then it will not cut costs by 15% --------------> it will not remain solvent.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 61
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Mar 2018, 03:03
abhimahna wrote:
rekhabishop wrote:
abhimahna please help us out with this question.
I am not very convinced with OA. Shouldn't the answer be A? :(


Okay, I solved this question after a couple of days now and realized my mistake.

The argument is saying two things:

1. To remain solvent, you need to reduce expenditure by atleast 15%.

2. To meet point 1, you need to cut some benefits by 25%.

That means if I donot reduce my benefits by 25%, I wont be able to meet my point 1. If I donot meet my point 1 , I will not be able to remain solvent.

Hence, B is a clear winner here.

rekhabishop , here is the catch. I am saying To do X, I need to Y. But it doesn't mean if I do Y, I will do X as well.

It's like

If P, then Q. But notice that If Q doesn't guarantee P. Hence, A is out without a second thought.

Does that make sense?

P.S: Thanks for tagging me in. I am able to do this question 2nd time very easily. First time, I didnt realize my mistake at all.


abhimahna
If my understanding is correct then, you have arrived at option B using the following reasoning

Acc to Option A: If I am able to reduce expenses by 25% then it's not necessary that I can avoid insolvency. It may happen or it may not happen
Acc to option B: If I am not able to reduce expenses by 25% then I definitely can't save myself from becoming insolvent

but I have another question. What if I reduce expenses by a value between 15-25%. Wont B fall apart as well?
Board of Directors
User avatar
V
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3343
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Mar 2018, 08:58
prateek176 wrote:
If my understanding is correct then, you have arrived at option B using the following reasoning

Acc to Option A: If I am able to reduce expenses by 25% then it's not necessary that I can avoid insolvency. It may happen or it may not happen
Acc to option B: If I am not able to reduce expenses by 25% then I definitely can't save myself from becoming insolvent

but I have another question. What if I reduce expenses by a value between 15-25%. Wont B fall apart as well?


Hey prateek176 ,

Actually No.

See the argument itself is saying we need to reduce expenses by 25%. This doesn't open the doors for negotiation. So, if you are saying between 15 and 24.99%, it means you are not meeting the criteria of the argument itself.

Hence, B will fall apart only when the argument itself is saying so.

Does that make sense?
_________________

How I improved from V21 to V40! ?


How to use this forum in THE BEST way?


New --> How ApplicantLab made me reach my 10 years long MBA dream?

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 43
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
WE: Other (Other)
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Mar 2018, 10:06
TaN1213 wrote:
Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, Euroquest must reduce personnel expenditures by at least 15% over the next year in order to remain solvent. In order to do so, Euroquest would have to cut entire divisions and benefits programs such that it would reduce personnel expenditures by a full 25% over the next year.

Which of the following can be logically inferred from the information above?
a. Euroquest reduces personnel expenditures by 25% over the next year it will remain solvent.
b. If Euroquest cannot reduce personnel expenditures by 25% over the next year it will not remain solvent.
c. Euroquest is unable to charge as much for its products as it was a year ago.
d. Euroquest competitors earn a higher return on investment for personnel expenditures than Euroquest does.
e. Some of Euroquest competitors will also have to significantly reduce personnel expenditures in order to remain solvent.



Option A as well as Option B, Both seems correct, But Option B is definite one.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 19 Sep 2017
Posts: 18
WE: Account Management (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Apr 2018, 15:57
TaN1213 wrote:
Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry, Euroquest must reduce personnel expenditures by at least 15% over the next year in order to remain solvent. In order to do so, Euroquest would have to cut entire divisions and benefits programs such that it would reduce personnel expenditures by a full 25% over the next year.

Which of the following can be logically inferred from the information above?
a. Euroquest reduces personnel expenditures by 25% over the next year it will remain solvent.
b. If Euroquest cannot reduce personnel expenditures by 25% over the next year it will not remain solvent.
c. Euroquest is unable to charge as much for its products as it was a year ago.
d. Euroquest competitors earn a higher return on investment for personnel expenditures than Euroquest does.
e. Some of Euroquest competitors will also have to significantly reduce personnel expenditures in order to remain solvent.


Correct choice B

Thought process:
Necessary reduction to remain solvent — at least 15%
What Euroquest can do — 25%
How? Cut entire divisions and benefits programs.
Could it do partial? Not given.
So, only possible way to remain solvent is 25%. Hence Option B.
Re: Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry,   [#permalink] 14 Apr 2018, 15:57

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 34 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Because competition has dramatically lowered margins in the industry,

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

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®.