Last visit was: 19 Jun 2024, 13:03 It is currently 19 Jun 2024, 13:03
Toolkit
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

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.

# Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Intern
Joined: 18 Sep 2018
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 15
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6954
Own Kudos [?]: 64275 [1]
Given Kudos: 1808
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 364
Own Kudos [?]: 79 [0]
Given Kudos: 832
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5249
Own Kudos [?]: 4704 [1]
Given Kudos: 651
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
1
Kudos
varotkorn wrote:

Why is choice D. wrong?

According to choice D., those businesses that are SUFFERING will not get loans.
Regardless of the savings, loans will not go to those businesses in need.
Hi varotkorn,

1. We cannot consider "suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans" and "prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules" the same.
2. "Bankers generally will not continue to lend money" implies that some money has already been given. This is not necessarily true for all the companies that we are interested in.
3. The question is limited to the amount of money available for loans. Disbursement may not be relevant.

... plan to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses

There is more money in the system as a result of the government's plan, and option D does nothing to change that. Option A tells us that something else (consumer borrowing) takes that money out of the system.
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 364
Own Kudos [?]: 79 [0]
Given Kudos: 832
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
Dear VeritasKarishma GMATNinja GMATGuruNY IanStewart VeritasPrepBrian MartyTargetTestPrep AjiteshArun AtlanticGMAT,

I have some question on choice A. on the bold portion below.
(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.

According to choice A., I interpret as follows

In the past before the tax incentive:
1. Personal retirement savings = \$1,000
2. Development loans = \$500
3. Consumer borrowings = \$500

Then choice A. says after the tax incentive, consumer borrowing increases correspondingly
So after tax incentive:
1. Personal retirement savings = \$2,000
2. Development loans = \$1,000
3. Consumer borrowings = \$1,000

I interpret that "increases correspondingly" means increases with the SAME PROPORTION. If before the incentive, consumer borrowings account for 50% of personal retirement savings, then after the incentive the proportion would be the same. It is the actual amount of consumer borrowings that increases (e.g. from \$500 to \$1,000 in my above example). But then the actual amount of development loans increases as well

What does "correspondingly" actually mean then?
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14968
Own Kudos [?]: 66054 [1]
Given Kudos: 435
Location: Pune, India
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
1
Kudos
varotkorn wrote:
Dear VeritasKarishma GMATNinja GMATGuruNY IanStewart VeritasPrepBrian MartyTargetTestPrep AjiteshArun AtlanticGMAT,

I have some question on choice A. on the bold portion below.
(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.

According to choice A., I interpret as follows

In the past before the tax incentive:
1. Personal retirement savings = \$1,000
2. Development loans = \$500
3. Consumer borrowings = \$500

Then choice A. says after the tax incentive, consumer borrowing increases correspondingly
So after tax incentive:
1. Personal retirement savings = \$2,000
2. Development loans = \$1,000
3. Consumer borrowings = \$1,000

I interpret that "increases correspondingly" means increases with the SAME PROPORTION. If before the incentive, consumer borrowings account for 50% of personal retirement savings, then after the incentive the proportion would be the same. It is the actual amount of consumer borrowings that increases (e.g. from \$500 to \$1,000 in my above example). But then the actual amount of development loans increases as well

What does "correspondingly" actually mean then?

Correspondingly means in a similar or same manner. So if the consumers are saving more, they are borrowing more too. This may not leave much for businesses then. Exactly how the two increase is not known and irrelevant. The idea is to make individuals save more but then their borrower will increase to a similar extent too.
We DON'T have this relation given anywhere: Personal retirement savings = Development loans + Consumer borrowings
There may be many other sources of revenue too.
Increasing personal savings may not have the desired impact because consumer borrowing will also increase.
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1361
Own Kudos [?]: 852 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
GMATNinja AndrewN BrentGMATPrepNow

Just a doubt came on this question:

Quote:
(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.

Even if consumer borrowing always increases , it should not matter on personal retirement savings.
Some amount is deducted every month from our salaries as retirement fund, but even that amount is increased , we can not withdraw that money unless we retire or declare retirement and plan not work on salary basis .

So A seems irrelevant with this information.

Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3511
Own Kudos [?]: 6940 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
2
Kudos
mSKR wrote:
GMATNinja AndrewN BrentGMATPrepNow

Just a doubt came on this question:

Quote:
(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.

Even if consumer borrowing always increases , it should not matter on personal retirement savings.
Some amount is deducted every month from our salaries as retirement fund, but even that amount is increased , we can not withdraw that money unless we retire or declare retirement and plan not work on salary basis .

So A seems irrelevant with this information.

Hello, mSKR. I think there are several fine analyses of the question in the thread already, so I will refrain from offering a recap. I think the big issue is that you are letting real-world knowledge get in the way of the linear logic the passage encourages—i.e. increased money in retirement savings accounts equals more money available to borrowers, who will presumably invest in their businesses by seeking development loans. That is it.

But if more and more hands dip into the available funds, the chain of logic may be broken. We need not consider whether people have access to their own retirement funds unless the passage tells us to. For all we know, the government is set up to monitor such funds so that it can offer loans to businesses in the same total amount.

- Andrew
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1361
Own Kudos [?]: 219 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
Hi avigutman - what are your thoughts on this variation of option C ?

[Option C (variant)] Even with tax incentives, some MOST people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.

I dont think this (option C variant) is a weak-ener as well.

Because, lets say "Most" is a high as 95 %.

The argument is asking if the plan WORKS for the remaining 5 % specifically. Given we DONT know from C if the plan DOES or DOES NOT work for the 5 % specifically, we cant say if option C variant is weakener or not

Thoughts ?

Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 20 Oct 2021, 10:50.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 20 Oct 2021, 12:24, edited 7 times in total.
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1304
Own Kudos [?]: 1745 [0]
Given Kudos: 66
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
jabhatta2 wrote:
Hi avigutman - what are your thoughts on this variation of option C ?

[Option C (variant)] Even with tax incentives, some MOST people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.

I dont think this (option C variant) is a weak-ener as well.

Because, lets say "Most" is a high as 95 %.

The argument is asking if the plan WORKS for the remaining 5 % specifically. Given we DONT know from C if the plan DOES or DOES NOT work for the 5 % specifically, we cant say if option C variant is weakener or not

Thoughts ?

jabhatta2 How can we measure the effectiveness of this plan?
We want to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses, and we plan to do so by getting individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts.
Would you agree with this statement: The more individual taxpayers we get to do this, the more effective the plan will be (all else being equal).

If we find out that only one taxpayer will put a larger portion of their income into a retirement savings accounts, would that cause us to doubt the effectiveness of the government's plan? Yes, I'd say that it would.
Intern
Joined: 27 Sep 2022
Posts: 32
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 12
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
GMATNinja wrote:
The government wants to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses. How does the government plan to do that?

• The government plans to modify the income-tax structure.
• The modifications are supposed to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts.
• As more money is deposited into retirement savings accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.

The government hopes that increasing the money available to borrowers will increase the amount of money available for development loans for business, but is that necessarily the case? We need to select the answer choice that raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan.

Quote:
(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increase correspondingly.

The government wants to modify the income-tax structure to make people put more of their income into retirement savings accounts. This should increase the amount of money available to borrowers. But will that money go to development loans for business? What if that money goes to other kinds of loans?

Choice (A) tells us that consumer borrowing WILL increase if personal retirement savings increases. So more money will become available for borrowing, but consumers will borrow some or all of that money. That leaves less (if any) money for development loans. It's possible that some of that money will be used for development loans and that the government's plan will still succeed, but choice (A) raises a serious doubt. Hang on to this one.

Quote:
(B) The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansion would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan.

Choice (B) tells us that the government will suffer a net loss in revenue as a result of this plan. But we are not trying to determine how the plan will impact the government's revenue. We are simply trying to determine whether the plan will succeed in increasing the amount of money available for development loans for businesses. Choice (B) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.

Quote:
(C) Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.

It's okay if SOME people chose not to increase their levels of retirement savings. As long as some people DO increase their levels of retirement savings, the government's plan could still work. In other words, we don't need ALL people to increase their savings, only some. Choice (C) does not raise serious doubt and can be eliminated.

Quote:
(D) Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.

This is obviously a problem for those businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules. But we are not concerned with that situation. We simply want to know whether the modifications to the income-tax structure will increase the amount of money available for development loans for business. As long as the amount available for such loans increases, the government's plan will be a success, regardless of whether some businesses can't access that money because they've had problems paying off their loans. Eliminate (D).

Quote:
(E) The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.

A possible misunderstanding of choice (E) is to conclude that taxpayers will get the same tax savings regardless of how much they deposit in retirement savings accounts. That might give people less incentive to increase their retirement savings (i.e. "Why should I put more into my retirement savings if it won't increase by tax savings?") and thus jeopardize the government's plan.

But this is not what choice (E) says. Rather, it says that taxpayers will, regardless of their incomes, get "the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings." In other words, if two taxpayers have different incomes but make identical increases in their retirement savings, then both would get the same tax savings. Thus, choice (E) does not affect the government's plan to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts. Eliminate (E).

Choice (A) is the best answer.

GMATNinja

I crossed off A because I thought "businesses" were within the scope of "consumer". After all, we can call a business a consumer of the loan right?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6954
Own Kudos [?]: 64275 [0]
Given Kudos: 1808
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
Quote:
GMATNinja

I crossed off A because I thought "businesses" were within the scope of "consumer". After all, we can call a business a consumer of the loan right?

I feel your pain here. A "consumer loan" isn't a loan that's "consumed" by a borrower. Otherwise all lending would be consumer lending! Rather, the term helps distinguish between lending to entities that use the money for personal spending (a consumer loan) and lending to entities that use the money for development (a development loan.)

So the logic in (A) is that if you've got a pool of money that's drained by one group (consumers), then naturally, there'll be less remaining for another group (developers).

But the takeaway here isn't to file away the definition of "consumer loan." That's not likely to help you. Rather, the takeaway is that when an answer is weird or confusing -- or different people might argue about what it means -- hang on to it! If everything else is wrong, well, the weird and confusing one is your answer.

I hope that helps!
Director
Joined: 16 Jul 2019
Posts: 513
Own Kudos [?]: 229 [0]
Given Kudos: 152
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
GMATNinja wrote:
The government wants to increase the amount of money available for development loans for businesses. How does the government plan to do that?

• The government plans to modify the income-tax structure.
• The modifications are supposed to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts.
• As more money is deposited into retirement savings accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.

The government hopes that increasing the money available to borrowers will increase the amount of money available for development loans for business, but is that necessarily the case? We need to select the answer choice that raises the most serious doubt regarding the effectiveness of the government's plan.

Quote:
(A) When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increase correspondingly.

The government wants to modify the income-tax structure to make people put more of their income into retirement savings accounts. This should increase the amount of money available to borrowers. But will that money go to development loans for business? What if that money goes to other kinds of loans?

Choice (A) tells us that consumer borrowing WILL increase if personal retirement savings increases. So more money will become available for borrowing, but consumers will borrow some or all of that money. That leaves less (if any) money for development loans. It's possible that some of that money will be used for development loans and that the government's plan will still succeed, but choice (A) raises a serious doubt. Hang on to this one.

Quote:
(B) The increased tax revenue the government would receive as a result of business expansion would not offset the loss in revenue from personal income taxes during the first year of the plan.

Choice (B) tells us that the government will suffer a net loss in revenue as a result of this plan. But we are not trying to determine how the plan will impact the government's revenue. We are simply trying to determine whether the plan will succeed in increasing the amount of money available for development loans for businesses. Choice (B) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.

Quote:
(C) Even with tax incentives, some people will choose not to increase their levels of retirement savings.

It's okay if SOME people chose not to increase their levels of retirement savings. As long as some people DO increase their levels of retirement savings, the government's plan could still work. In other words, we don't need ALL people to increase their savings, only some. Choice (C) does not raise serious doubt and can be eliminated.

Quote:
(D) Bankers generally will not continue to lend money to businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules.

This is obviously a problem for those businesses whose prospective earnings are insufficient to meet their loan repayment schedules. But we are not concerned with that situation. We simply want to know whether the modifications to the income-tax structure will increase the amount of money available for development loans for business. As long as the amount available for such loans increases, the government's plan will be a success, regardless of whether some businesses can't access that money because they've had problems paying off their loans. Eliminate (D).

Quote:
(E) The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.

A possible misunderstanding of choice (E) is to conclude that taxpayers will get the same tax savings regardless of how much they deposit in retirement savings accounts. That might give people less incentive to increase their retirement savings (i.e. "Why should I put more into my retirement savings if it won't increase by tax savings?") and thus jeopardize the government's plan.

But this is not what choice (E) says. Rather, it says that taxpayers will, regardless of their incomes, get "the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings." In other words, if two taxpayers have different incomes but make identical increases in their retirement savings, then both would get the same tax savings. Thus, choice (E) does not affect the government's plan to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts. Eliminate (E).

Choice (A) is the best answer.

Why is E a poor choice? It also thwarts the incentive to individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6954
Own Kudos [?]: 64275 [1]
Given Kudos: 1808
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
1
Kudos
samagra21 wrote:

Why is E a poor choice? It also thwarts the incentive to individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts.

Here's (E) again:
Quote:
The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.

All (E) tells us is that the rate of tax savings is the same for rich people and for poor people who put money into their retirement accounts. So, two different people who put the same amount (let's say \$1000) into their retirement accounts will receive the same tax savings, even if one of those people makes more money than the other.

That's totally different than saying that one person would get the same amount of tax savings if he/she put two different amounts (say \$1000 vs. \$5000) into his/her account. (E) just doesn't support this -- we have no idea what the actual tax savings structure looks like. We just know that it's the same for everyone. So it could be equally great for rich and poor people to put the extra \$4000 into their retirement accounts.

Overall, (E) doesn't give us a reason to assume that people won't put a large portion of their income into retirement accounts. It could be that the tax savings structure highly incentivizes people -- whether they are high or low income -- to put ton of money into their retirement accounts.

Eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!
Director
Joined: 16 Jul 2019
Posts: 513
Own Kudos [?]: 229 [0]
Given Kudos: 152
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
GMATNinja wrote:
samagra21 wrote:

Why is E a poor choice? It also thwarts the incentive to individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts.

Here's (E) again:
Quote:
The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.

All (E) tells us is that the rate of tax savings is the same for rich people and for poor people who put money into their retirement accounts. So, two different people who put the same amount (let's say \$1000) into their retirement accounts will receive the same tax savings, even if one of those people makes more money than the other.

That's totally different than saying that one person would get the same amount of tax savings if he/she put two different amounts (say \$1000 vs. \$5000) into his/her account. (E) just doesn't support this -- we have no idea what the actual tax savings structure looks like. We just know that it's the same for everyone. So it could be equally great for rich and poor people to put the extra \$4000 into their retirement accounts.

Overall, (E) doesn't give us a reason to assume that people won't put a large portion of their income into retirement accounts. It could be that the tax savings structure highly incentivizes people -- whether they are high or low income -- to put ton of money into their retirement accounts.

Eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!

Where in E does it it say the “rate” of tax savings?

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6954
Own Kudos [?]: 64275 [1]
Given Kudos: 1808
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
1
Kudos
samagra21 wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
samagra21 wrote:

Why is E a poor choice? It also thwarts the incentive to individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts.

Here's (E) again:
Quote:
The modified tax structure would give all taxpayers, regardless of their incomes, the same tax savings for a given increase in their retirement savings.

All (E) tells us is that the rate of tax savings is the same for rich people and for poor people who put money into their retirement accounts. So, two different people who put the same amount (let's say \$1000) into their retirement accounts will receive the same tax savings, even if one of those people makes more money than the other.

That's totally different than saying that one person would get the same amount of tax savings if he/she put two different amounts (say \$1000 vs. \$5000) into his/her account. (E) just doesn't support this -- we have no idea what the actual tax savings structure looks like. We just know that it's the same for everyone. So it could be equally great for rich and poor people to put the extra \$4000 into their retirement accounts.

Overall, (E) doesn't give us a reason to assume that people won't put a large portion of their income into retirement accounts. It could be that the tax savings structure highly incentivizes people -- whether they are high or low income -- to put ton of money into their retirement accounts.

Eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!

Where in E does it it say the “rate” of tax savings?

Posted from my mobile device

A rate is a quantity measured against another quantity. For instance, if you were taxed \$5 out of every \$100 that you make, then your tax rate would be 5/100.

(E) gives us two quantities, and then measures them against each other. The first quantity is "tax savings," and this quantity is measured against "a given increase in their retirement savings." So, while the word "rate" isn't specifically used, we are definitely given a rate in that the two quantities are measured against one another.

Specifically, we are told that if someone puts a set amount of money into retirement savings, then they will earn a set amount in tax savings. This hold true for both rich people and poor people. So, the rate of tax savings per retirement savings is the same for rich people and poor people. This doesn't cast doubt on the argument, because this uniform rate could be excellent and encourage everyone to put money into their retirement accounts.

I hope that helps!
Intern
Joined: 30 May 2021
Posts: 17
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 30
Location: United States
Schools: HBS '26
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
AnishPassi could you please exlpain why Option C is wrong? A weakener is supposed to reduce our confidence that the plan will work. Although Option C is not a strong weakener, doesn't it still slightly reduce our confidence in the argument?
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 2676
Own Kudos [?]: 7818 [2]
Given Kudos: 56
GMAT 2: 780  Q50  V50
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
2
Kudos
RheaBhatia0302

In general, watch out for answers that try to weaken a large-scale proposition by talking about what "some" people do. The argument is saying that this incentive will make more money available. For this to be true, all we need to know is that SOME people will save more money. It doesn't need to be everyone; it doesn't even need to be the majority. It just needs to be a significant enough number of people to make a difference.

Imagine that someone invented a technology that kept people alive for as long as they liked and was offering it as a subscription for \$100/month. Now let's say I concluded that this business would generate very high revenues. Would you agree? Would it matter the SOME people don't want to live very long, or that not everyone can afford to spend \$100/month? Not at all. If even 1% of the world population was willing to pay, that would be billions of dollars in revenues. See what I mean? It's not a weakener to say that some people don't participate in something, unless the argument relies on the assumption that ALL people will participate.
Intern
Joined: 30 May 2021
Posts: 17
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 30
Location: United States
Schools: HBS '26
Re: Business are suffering because of a lack of money available for develo [#permalink]
DmitryFarber Thanks a lot for explaining this concept. I was stuck between A and C but now it makes a lot more sense.
Intern
Joined: 23 May 2023
Posts: 33
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 25
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: 500 Q42 V19
GMAT 2: 550 Q44 V22