Last visit was: 15 Dec 2024, 09:48 It is currently 15 Dec 2024, 09:48
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Reviews
Social
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
avatar
Hermione_Stark
avatar
Joined: 16 Sep 2017
Last visit: 07 Jan 2018
Posts: 2
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
Integrated Reasoning : Geographically typical territories 16 Sep 2017, 23:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In the below question - why did we not need to calculate median values and simply taking the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th was deemed correct?

For instance, in case of the last category, the median is 67. And hence the closest 50% values to it should have New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia. Please guide me where I'm going wrong.

Thanks
Attachments

IR3.PNG
IR3.PNG [ 30.92 KiB | Viewed 1256 times ]

IR2.PNG
IR2.PNG [ 55.73 KiB | Viewed 1268 times ]

User avatar
MathRevolution
User avatar
Math Revolution GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Aug 2015
Last visit: 27 Sep 2022
Posts: 10,114
Own Kudos:
17,815
Given Kudos: 4
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V42
GPA: 3.82
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q51 V42
Posts: 10,114
Kudos: 17,815
Integrated Reasoning : Geographically typical territories 23 Sep 2017, 19:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hermione_Stark
In the below question - why did we not need to calculate median values and simply taking the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th was deemed correct?

For instance, in case of the last category, the median is 67. And hence the closest 50% values to it should have New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia. Please guide me where I'm going wrong.

Thanks


Since we have 8 data in each category and its median is the average of 4th and 5th data, 50% of data closest to the median value of each category are 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th.
That's why we don't need to calculate exact values of medians.
It is enough to choose 4 data from the 3rd data after sorting.