Last visit was: 04 Sep 2026, 23:17 It is currently 04 Sep 2026, 23:17
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
655-705 (Hard)|   Non-Math Related|               
User avatar
Adit_
Joined: 04 Jun 2024
Last visit: 29 Jul 2026
Posts: 871
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 165
Posts: 871
Kudos: 327
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Adit_
Joined: 04 Jun 2024
Last visit: 29 Jul 2026
Posts: 871
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 165
Posts: 871
Kudos: 327
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
HridhayKapoor
Joined: 11 Mar 2026
Last visit: 05 Aug 2026
Posts: 8
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,633
Location: India
Schools: ISB INSEAD HEC
GPA: 3.67
Products:
Schools: ISB INSEAD HEC
Posts: 8
Kudos: 4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
FrozenDragon
User avatar
DI Forum Moderator
Joined: 05 May 2023
Last visit: 25 Aug 2026
Posts: 409
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 497
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q83 V81 DI78
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q83 V81 DI78
Posts: 409
Kudos: 686
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Yup . Time constraints really help on focusing and solving MSR effectively. The only down effect of this is to not dwell in carless mistake.
HridhayKapoor
I totally get it - Ive been actually counter intuitively finding MSR questions relatively less difficult when i give it less time as opposed to more. I think it helps stay sharp and only look for the crux of the details rather than more time which lets the mind dwindle. Try it out !

User avatar
Wangcincay
Joined: 23 Mar 2026
Last visit: 30 May 2026
Posts: 6
Given Kudos: 21
Posts: 6
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
i got no 1 right if it's not for the fact i thought they are asking for pure employee only. in this case jamal is a supervisor so he doesn't count. Can anyone tell me how they managed to avoid this sort of ambiguity. I feel like being punished for extra care
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 04 Sep 2026
Posts: 6,291
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 716
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 6,291
Kudos: 33,900
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Wangcincay,

Your instinct to be careful was right; it just landed on the wrong word. Let me show you where, because the read you used would have cost you on a different version of this question.

The slip: you treated "employees" as "non-supervisor employees," so you ruled Jamal out for being a supervisor. But look back at the Table tab: it lists the ten employees and their supervisors, and the note says the supervisors are also employees - that's why every supervisor's name shows up in both columns. So "employee" here includes the supervisors. Jamal is an employee. So is Kim.

Why that matters: the correct count of 2 is Kim and Richard - and Kim is a supervisor. If the question really meant "non-supervisors only," Kim wouldn't be allowed, and the answer would change. You got 2 because two errors happened to cancel, not because the exclusion was right.

The rule that actually does the filtering comes from the Discussion tab plus the Floor Plan, not from job title. Office 112 touches only one other office - 111. So whoever sits in 112 can satisfy at most one adjacency link:

- Jamal, Ciaran, Leila each supervise two people who must sit adjacent - one neighbor (111) can't hold two. Out.
- Anyone reporting up a longer chain (Selena, Elena, Pablo, Atticus, Mei, Ciaran) needs their own supervisor next door, and that supervisor needs their people too - the chain won't fit against a single wall. Out.
- Kim and Richard is a lone pair: put one in 112, the other in 111, done. Both qualify.

So the disqualifier is number of adjacency links versus 112's single neighbor - read straight off the floor plan - never "is this person a supervisor."

Quick gut-check to lock the reading: suppose the Table note instead said "supervisors are listed for reference and are not among the employees being assigned." Then Kim couldn't take 112 and the count would drop to 1. Notice how the answer swings entirely on that one scope line - that's the line to read precisely, every time, before you start placing anyone.

Answer: 2

Wangcincay
i got no 1 right if it's not for the fact i thought they are asking for pure employee only. in this case jamal is a supervisor so he doesn't count. Can anyone tell me how they managed to avoid this sort of ambiguity. I feel like being punished for extra care
User avatar
PGuha
Joined: 19 Aug 2024
Last visit: 04 Sep 2026
Posts: 15
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 30
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q86 V82 DI78
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 645 Q86 V82 DI78
Posts: 15
Kudos: 6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi, is there any way to solve these questions faster?
   1   2 
Moderators:
Math Expert
113146 posts
DI Forum Moderator
409 posts