varotkorn wrote:
I'm completely lost in this question.
Could you please provide an explanation?
It's an absurd question, nothing like anything you'll see on the GMAT. For one thing, it's culturally biased -- the GMAT is not a test of whether you know about sports, but this question setup is probably almost incomprehensible to someone unfamiliar with baseball. You'll never see questions like that on the GMAT. That's also the reason you don't see questions on the GMAT about card games, say (and even when talking about dice, the GMAT explains what a die is). The question setup is also far more complicated than any real GMAT question, and far more complicated than necessary to test the concept the question is trying to test.
The idea is roughly this:
home runs are really bad
singles are fairly neutral
strikeouts are really good
If, from Statement 1, Greg is much more likely to get a strikeout or single than Roger, then Roger must be more likely than Greg to get a home run. So Greg is more likely to get the good outcomes, and Roger more likely to get the bad, and Statement 1 is sufficient. Statement 2 is not sufficient, because we don't have a way to compare how likely it is each person gets a good outcome (a strikeout).
But honestly the question isn't worth spending any time on.
_________________
http://www.ianstewartgmat.com