I write this, my last Will and Testament, to determine the division of

Question

I write this, my last Will and Testament, to determine the division of my assets in the event of my passing.

I have dedicated $100,000 to the settling of my affairs, including the cost of my burial and any outstanding costs that must be paid in my absence. This includes the fees charged by my attorney to handle these affairs. Any remaining balance will be at the discretion of my attorney.

This $100,000 will also include the establishment of a $15,000 trust, to be awarded to the person who takes possession and care of any pets I may leave without care in the event of my death.

Additionally, $100,000 is to be donated to the Children's Hospital and Trial Medical Clinic, $100,000 is to be donated to local cancer charities, and $100,000 is to be donated to the creation of an entirely new exhibit at the Landers Field Zoo.

My remaining wealth is to be divided among my four children in equal parts. Sincerely,

Shirley Lands

p456 · Answer

NO YES YES I hope this will was mine but not when i am as old as Mrs Shirley Lands

1. Mrs. Lands's four children will receive more than $1 million each when the estate is settled. Total estate value = 1.3x10^6 + 0.227x10^6 + 0.552x10^6 + 0.509x10^6 + 0.442x10^6 + 0.139x10^6 = 3.169x10^6 if we equally divide among 4, each of them will NOT receive more than a million. NO 2. The total estate is valued at more than $3 million. As calculated above, total estate is valued more than 3 million. YES 3. Mrs. Lands had more than three sources of investment income at the time of her retirement. Only liquid assets are considered as a investment income. Stocks and Bonds, Real Estate, Money Market, Life Insurance. We have got more than 3. YES

Elite097 · Answer

i) Mrs. Lands's four children will receive more than $1 million each when the estate is settled
Estate value =1.3 mn
Liquid assets =1.869
Total = 3.169
Since the amount is < 4 mn thus each child will get less than 1 mn
false

ii) The total estate is valued at more than $3 million- True
The estate is appraised at (1.3 mn)+ estate liquid assets (1.869 mn)= 3.169 mn

iii) Mrs. Lands had more than three sources of investment income at the time of her retirement- Stocks, Real Estate, Savings are sources of income- False

hallfootball · Answer

Part 1: Mrs. Lands's four children will receive more than $1 million each when the estate is settled.

Total value of assests = 227 + 552 + 509 + 442 + 139 = 1469K

Total value of expenes = 100 + 100 + 100 + 100 = 400K
(100K for settling of affairs, 100K donated to the Children's Hospital and Trial Medical Clinic, 100K is to be donated to local cancer charities, and 100K is to be donated to the creation of an entirely new exhibit at the Landers Field Zoo.)

Remaining value (to be distributed among all her children) = 1069K

Hence, the answer is No.

Part 2: The total estate is valued at more than $3 million.

Total value of assests = 227 +  1300 + 509 + 442 + 139 = 2617K

The real estate is now valued at 1.3 Million and that's the only change in valuation.

Hence, the answer is No.

Part 3: Mrs. Lands had more than three sources of investment income at the time of her retirement.

Sources of income:

1. Stocks and Bond Portfolio
2. Savings, CD, Money Market
3. Other Funds & Assets

Therefore, a total of 3 sources of investment income.

Hence, the answer is No.

pintukr · Answer

A. Mrs. Lands's four children will receive more than $1 million each when the estate is settled.

Total value = $ 1.75 million (approx as per Tab # 2)) + $ 1.3 million (mother's home) = $ 2.05 million

Total Donation (Tab#1) = $ 0.4 million

Remaining ( for four children) = $ 1.65 million (for four children)

hence, Mrs. Lands's four children will receive less than $1 million each when the estate is settled

NO is the correct answer

B. The total estate is valued at more than $3 million.

Total value = $ 1.75 million (approx as per Tab # 2)) + $ 1.3 million (mother's home) = $ 2.05 million

NO is the correct answer

C. Mrs. Lands had more than three sources of investment income at the time of her retirement.

Mrs. Lands had five sources of investment income (as per Tab # 2) , besides the home.

YES is the correct answer

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

Statement 1:  The total value of the estate is $3,169,000. Mrs. Lands made significant contributions to several charities in her will, pushing the total value to just under $3 million, which must be divided between her four children. They will receive less than $1 million each.

Statement 2:  The total value of the estate is $3,169,000. This is found by adding the value of all of Mrs. Lands's liquid assets together, along with the value of her domicile.

Statement 3:  Mrs. Lands did have more than three sources of investment income at the time of her death, but the documents of her will and estate do not specify when the investments were made, so it cannot be assumed that she had them at the time of her retirement.

Elite097 · Answer

Sajjad1994 explanation for third is not at all clear. If she had more than three sources till death then we have the answer . How will time of investments made help??? And when did she have the estate and liquid assets - isn’t it from her will time to death? So if that’s the case then anyway we know that she had more than 3

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

p456 · Answer

Hi  Elite097

Let me see if i can explain. Suppose Mrs Shirley Lands was 75 years old. Till 75, she did not have any liquid assets except savings account. It was a month of January. She decided to invest in stocks, life insurance and other liquid assets. She invested on 15th of January. Then she died exactly 10 minutes after or other day(i am being ruthless, sorry for that, but i suppose this is what explanation meant). As a result,  her Will did not get updated  and main part, we don't know what time investments were made. So there is a possibility that she could have enjoyed retirement benefits or she could not have(so pity of her).

I assume this what the explanation by  Sajjad1994  meant. Let me know if it's clear.

rmahe11 · Answer

I dont agree with third one , Even real estate is an investment , the value has appreciated and it wont be sold less than 1.3 million dollars .

Sajjad1994 · Answer

The third statement is not about value but rather time. We don't know the date of her investments, and this is enough to say that we cannot infer this information, and the answer is No.

NPProb · Answer

I also chose   Yes  . I guess what the OA is trying to say is that how many investments did she own   "at the time point when she retired"  , but we treated the expression " the time of her retirement " as   "during the time period of her retirement"  .
This question... I don't know what to say...

mkeshri185 · Answer

Why are we adding House price again? It should come under real estate isn't it?
Also there are indeed more than 3 sources of income through investments

Bunuel · Answer

1. The $552,000 “Real Estate” is part of the  liquid-asset  estimate. That list explicitly says it  excludes the current domicile (meaning her personal residence or home) . The house is separately appraised at $1.3M in the letter, so adding the house is not double counting. It’s outside the $552,000.

2. The documents show her assets  at death , not  at the time of her retirement . Those are separate points in time, so the data cannot confirm what she held or earned income from when she retired. Therefore, the inference is not supported.

AkshayBhushan · Answer

Hello, in part three why other assets were not considered, should'nt the answer be true for this ?

egmat · Answer

Hi AkshayBhushan,

Good instinct to look at  Other Funds and Assets  and the other line items, but let me show you why counting them doesn't flip statement (3) to Yes.

You're right that the valuation table ( Tab 2 ) lists several categories - Stocks and Bonds, Real Estate, Savings/CD/Money Market, Life Insurance, and Other Funds & Assets. So if the statement were simply  "Mrs. Lands had more than three sources of investment,"  you'd have a solid case for Yes.

The word that kills it is "at the time of her retirement."

Here's the gap: Tab 2 is the  Estate's Liquid Assets Valuation  - a snapshot of what she owned  at death , when her estate is being settled. None of the three sources tells us  when  she acquired these assets. She could have opened the stock portfolio, bought the life insurance, or built up the "Other Funds"  after  she retired. Retirement and death are two different points in time, and nothing in any tab links her holdings back to the retirement date.

So the number of categories isn't the issue - even if we counted all  five  (or more), we still can't place them  at retirement . Inferable in MSR means it  must  be true; here it's only  possibly  true, so the answer is  No .

A quick way to feel it:

-  Tab A:  "Today, Maria owns  5  rental properties."
-  Tab B:  "Maria retired in  2010 ."

Can you infer Maria owned more than  3  properties  in 2010 ?  No  - she may have bought them after retiring. Same trap here: the count is clear, but the  timing  is unsupported.

Answer: No, Yes, No

I write this, my last Will and Testament, to determine the division of

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Yes	No
		Mrs. Lands's four children will receive more than $1 million each when the estate is settled.
		The total estate is valued at more than $3 million.
		Mrs. Lands had more than three sources of investment income at the time of her retirement.

GMAT Multi-Source Reasoning (MSR) Questions

I write this, my last Will and Testament, to determine the division of

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards