The PQ&R Corporation has developed a collection of training materials

Question

The PQ&R Corporation has developed a collection of training materials and skills tests for activities that accurately represent the types of tasks performed by employees in a production environment. Before any instruction is given, each trainee is asked to perform the training battery—a series of tasks for which they are about to receive training. Immediately on completion of instruction, trainees are again asked to perform the training battery to assess the effectiveness of instruction. After performing the battery for the second time, the trainees become employees of PQ&R. On completion of their six-month introductory period of employment, trainees are required to perform the training battery a third time.

Sajjad1994 · Accepted Answer

Official Explanation

1. For each of the following statements about the scores in Session 1, Session 2, and Session 3, select Yes if the statement is supported by the information provided. Otherwise, select No.

RO1

The Session 2 graphs show that all the trainees scored less than 20 in pretraining and greater than 60 in posttraining, so their pretraining scores were greater than 3 times their posttraining scores.

The correct answer is Yes.

RO2

The Session 1 graphs show that the order of trainees by pretraining score is identical to the order by posttraining score. Therefore, there is a positive correlation between the two scores.

The correct answer is Yes.

RO3

The Session 1 graphs show that pretraining scores ranged from approximately 25 to 45, for a range of 20. The Session 2 graphs show that pretraining scores ranged from approximately 5 to 15, for a range of 10. The Session 3 graphs show that pretraining scores ranged from approximately 22 to 45, for a range of 23. Thus, the range is least for Session 2.

The correct answer is Yes.

For each of the three training sessions, select Successful if, on the basis of the given information, it would be considered successful by PQ&R. Otherwise, select Unsuccessful.

To find the average pretraining score and post-training score for each session, one could add the 8 scores of each type and divide by the number of scores (8). A quicker estimate can be made, however, by comparing the highest pretraining score and lowest post-training score for each session. If the lowest post-training score is at least 50% higher than the highest pretraining score, the average post-training score will also be at least 50% higher than the average pretraining score, and no further calculation is needed to determine whether the training session was successful.

RO1

In Session 1, the highest pretraining score according to the graph is approximately 45. The lowest post-training score is approximately 70. The percent of increase from 45 to 70 is  %~56%, which is greater than 50%

The correct answer is Successful.

RO2

In Session 2, the highest pretraining score according to the graph is approximately 15. The lowest posttraining score is approximately 65. The percent of increase from 15 to 65 is  %~333%, which is greater than 50%

The correct answer is Successful.

RO3

In Session 3, the highest pretraining score according to the graph is approximately 45. The lowest posttraining score is approximately 80. The percent of increase from 45 to 80 is  %~78%, which is greater than 50%

The correct answer is Successful.

Immediately prior to performing the training battery at the six-month mark, all the trainees in Session 1 were subject to on-the-job observation and their performance was scored. For tasks performed during observation that were also included in the battery, the average (arithmetic mean) score was 99.5. Which one of the following would, if true, best explain the apparent discrepancy between this result and the given information?

According to the information provided, the trainees in Session 1 on average performed higher in their on-the-job observation (99.5%) than in their six-month training battery. (The graph shows that only 2 of 8 trainees scored 99% or higher in the six-month training battery.) If activities performed out of the controlled assessment environment were more prone to error, the on-the-job observation scores should be lower, not higher (excluding A).

Additionally, B, C, and D do not help explain the discrepancy because they provide no basis for comparing on-the-job performance with performance on the test battery. If, however, the training battery contained many more tasks than did the on-the-job observation (E), it is possible that trainees scored lower on those additional tasks. That could explain the discrepancy between the on-the-job observation and the six-month training battery.

Answer: E

Apt0810 · Answer

1)a)Yes,we can see for example that 2a,2b have post training scores more than 3 times the pretraining scores
b)Yes,in the session 1 as the pretraining scores are increasing the post training scores are also increasing
c)Yes,we can easily that the highest and lowest value are lowest for session 2 when compared with that of session 1 &3,and the distance between the highest and lowest value is list so yes the range is least.

2) Yes,all the sessions are successful because we can easily see that the individual values for post training sessions are atleast greater than 1.5 times the values of pretraining session so obviously the average will also be at least 1.5 greater.

3)E,Since if the trainees are assigned some subset of tasks theb only the average score can go upto 99.5 because if they would have given all the tasks then the avg would be pretty much lower

Posted from my mobile device

bM22 · Answer

Hi  sajjad , 
 Could you post the OE for question 3, I am having trouble deducing how the a small subset of tasks would result in the average going up. 
Below is my explanation for the first 2 questions.

1. 
A. For at least one trainee, the posttraining score was greater than 3 times the pretraining score.

From the graph we can infer that for 2a, the pre-training score = ~5, and post-training score = ~ 65 (> 3 times the pre-training score)
Since, condition mentioned is for at least one trainee = > >= 1.
So, 1 is enough, but from the graph we can easily interpret that the post training scores for 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f, 2g, 2g is also greater than 3 times the pre-training scores of the respective trainees.

Answer is Yes.

B. The data for Session 1 exhibit a positive correlation between pretraining and posttraining scores.
yes, since the scores for both the sessions are increasing.

Answer is  Yes .

C. For the three sessions, the range of pre-training scores is least for Session 2.
Range of Pre-training scores for session 1: 45-25 = ~ 20
For Session 2: 15-5 = ~10 
For Session 3: 43-22 = ~21.
We can see, the range is lowest for session 2.

Answer Yes.

2. For each of the three training sessions, select Successful if, on the basis of the given information, it would be considered successful by PQ&R. Otherwise, select Unsuccessful.

Let's do it for Session 1: 
 The corresponding average pre-training score = (25+28+30+35+40+40+41+42)/8 = 45.12
=> average (arithmetic mean) post-training score for Session 1: (71 +72+ 77+ 78 + 80 + 80 + 81 + 81)/ 8 = 77.5 (clearly >50% of the average of the pre- training scores.)
 => Training for Session 1 was successful.
 
For session 2: The wide difference in scores, indicates that the average of the post-training scores is >50% of the average of the pre-training scores.
 => training for Session 2 was also successful.
  
For Session 3, also the wide difference in scores easily helps us identify the average diff., thus making the training for session 3 also  successful .

Thanks.

YashYashkratos · Answer

Can someone please explain the third table (trainees by session) 
i do not understand the pre training score order and post training score order.

chetan2u · Answer

The graphs are exactly the same. It os more like sorting the table in present questions. The pre training score ordered is sorted from lower pre training score to higher pre-training score( check the top edge of the dark blue portion for each employee), and post training score ordered is sorted from lower post training score to higher post-training score( check the top edge of the light blue portion for each employee).

PReciSioN · Answer

For Q3,

E says - "On the job, the trainees are usually assigned only a small subset of the tasks included in the training battery."

Does this help explain why the employees scored higher in this small subset than in the overall training battery? No.

B - "The tasks that trainees performed most poorly during on-the-job observation are those that the trainees perform least frequently on the job."
 
This suggests that there is some correlation between infrequent performance and poor performance. Since tasks in the training battery, that are not part of the job, are not performed at all, this could indeed explain why the overall score for training battery was lower than the on-the-job scores.

Could  avigutman  ,  Bunuel  ,  chetan2u  comment on this please? Thanks.

zermatt17 · Answer

Question 1) "For each of the following statements about the scores in Session 1, Session 2, and Session 3, select Yes if the statement is supported by the information provided. Otherwise, select No."

It says "the scores in session 1, session 2, and session 3"

"For at least one trainee, the posttraining score was greater than 3 times the pretraining score." >> should I read it as at least one trainee in one session or in ALL 3 sessions?

bb · Answer

Hi. You would look for 1 trainee that has improved in ANY session by 3x. So Session 1, 2 or 3 would satisfy that condition.

bb · Answer

Hi. For Question 3, we are looking for why they scored 99.5 on the "on-the-job observation) and and lower on the battery. If the on-job observation included only a small sub-set of tasks as E says, then maybe they only did 5 things and did them really well on the job while the battery required them to do 10 or 15 tasks and some of them they were not good at, and thus got lower scores. I think you may have read this one backwards.

E is the correct answer.  The battery tests a lot more than what they do on the job.

B is irrelevant.  We know they got a score of 99.5 on the observation. This tells us nothing about the training battery. Who cares which tasks were scored lower or higher. What they got a 98 on some and 100 on others?

FrozenDragon · Answer

Adding new sub - questions from DI review 2026-27

Usernamevisible · Answer

FrozenDragon  - can you help with the solution as well for it please

chetan2u · Answer

The question can be best done with observation and comparison with sizes of colored column rather than with getting caught up with calculations.
None of the question really requires any calculations beyond simple subtraction.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6vBFZjelNQ

FrozenDragon · Answer

Sure, below are the official explanations for the new questions.

Official Explanation :

4.

The "Trainee Report" tab explains how to interpret the graphs in the "Trainees by Session" tab. In these graphs, the height of the top of each bar's blue section stands for an individual trainee's post training score. In each bar in each graph, the top of the blue section is higher than the number 60 on the graph's vertical axis. This means each trainee achieved a posttraining score greater than 60.

As explained in the "Trainee Report" tab, the height of the top of each bar's black section in the graphs in the "Trainees by Session" tab stands for an individual trainee's pretraining score. Each graph in the top row of the "Trainees by Session" tab shows the scores for Session 1, each graph in the middle row shows the scores for Session 2, and each graph in the bottom row shows the scores for Session 3. Notice that the top of each bar's black section in the graphs for Session 2 is much lower than the top of any bar's black section in the graphs for Sessions 1 and 3. This means every individual pretraining score for Session 2 is lower than any individual pretraining score for Session 1 or Session 3. Thus, the average pretraining score for Session 2 is also lower than the average pretraining score for either of the other sessions.

As explained above, the graphs in the bottom row show the scores for Session 3, and the height of each blue bar stands for a trainee's posttraining score. And as the "Trainee Report" tab explains, the heights of the plus signs in each graph stand for the trainees' six-month scores. The graphs for Session 3 show that the posttraining scores ranged from about 80 for trainee 3d to about 95 for trainee 3h, while the six-month scores ranged from about 60 for trainee 3b to about 100 for trainees 3e and 3h. Thus, the range of posttraining scores is about 95 – 80 = 15, whereas the range of six-month scores is about 100 – 60 = 40. Since 40 > 15, in Session 3 the range of six-month scores is greater than the range of posttraining scores.
  
The correct answers are Yes, Yes, and Yes.

5.

In the graphs in the "Trainees by Session" tab, a trainee's post training score is greater than the pretraining score plus half the difference between 100 and the pretraining score if the blue section of the bar for that trainee extends up more than halfway between the top of that bar's black section and the number 100 at the top of the bar. This is true for every single bar in the graphs for each of the three sessions. Therefore, PQ&R would consider each of the three training sessions successful.

The correct answers are Successful, Successful, and Successful.

6.

In the graphs in the "Trainees by Session" tab, the heights of the blue bars' tops stand for the individual trainees' posttraining scores, and the heights of the plus signs stand for the trainees' six-month scores. All trainees in Session 1 are shown as having posttraining scores below 90. And the only three trainees with scores of at least 90 in Session 2—trainees 2h, 2c, and 2d—are all shown as having six-month scores lower than their posttraining scores. But in Session 3, trainee 3h is shown as having a posttraining score over 90 and an even higher six-month score.

The correct answer is 3h.

SS3003 · Answer

For question 3 - Wouldn't Option B make sense as well. If the least performing tasks were not assessed frequently on the job it would lead to the scores being skewed higher to 99.5 in the on the job assessment ?

Usernamevisible · Answer

For Question 3
Can someone explain why B is incorrect and E is clearly superior?
My thought process:

Observation score (99.5 average) is based on tasks performed on the job.
Session 3 battery tests all tasks.
In B, the tasks performed most poorly during observation are also the tasks performed least frequently on the job.
If those low-scoring tasks occur infrequently, wouldn't they contribute less to the observation average, while potentially receiving equal weight in the Session 3 battery? That seems like a plausible explanation for why observation scores are much higher than Session 3 scores.

I understand that E creates a subset-vs-whole distinction, but doesn't E also require the assumption that the tasks outside the subset are the ones dragging down the battery score?
What am I missing that makes E a better explanation than B?

Sajjad1994   bb ,  chetan2u ,  FrozenDragon

Bunuel · Answer

Your reasoning for B depends on an extra assumption: that the observation average is weighted by how frequently each task was performed. The passage does not say that. The poorly performed tasks were still part of the observation, and being performed less frequently does not necessarily give them less weight in the reported average.

E is stronger because it directly shows that the observation covered only a small subset of the tasks, while the six-month battery covered the full set. Therefore, the 99.5 observation score was based on a limited, possibly unrepresentative subset of tasks. Since the full-battery score was lower, the other tasks must have reduced the overall score. That follows from the given results rather than being an additional assumption.

egmat · Answer

Hi Usernamevisible,

You've actually spotted the trap and then talked yourself into it. Let me separate the two worlds the question is comparing.

From the  Procedures tab , the  training battery  is the full, fixed set of tasks. The new fact scores something narrower: the  99.5  average is only for  tasks performed during observation that were also in the battery  - the overlap. The discrepancy is that this overlap average ( 99.5 ) sits well above the Session  1  six-month battery scores (~ 80 - 94  on the  Trainees by Session  graph).

Why B can't do the job.

Read B strictly: it compares tasks  within the observation  - the ones observed most poorly are the ones done least often on the job. But every task in that  99.5  average is  already a battery task . B never introduces any task that's in the battery but  not  observed. So B gives you zero bridge to why the  full  battery score is lower. Your weighting idea also quietly assumes the battery weights those tasks more heavily - nothing supports that. In short, to make B "work," you have to import the idea that the battery contains extra, rarely-done tasks - and that idea is exactly what E states, not what B states.

Why E works - and isn't an extra assumption.

E says on the job trainees do only a  small subset  of the battery's tasks. Then the overlap they're observed on = the subset they practice constantly = near-perfect ( 99.5 ). The full battery adds the many tasks they seldom touch, which naturally score lower. Both facts are true at once - the discrepancy dissolves. That "unpracticed tasks score lower" step isn't a smuggled premise; it's the direct consequence of doing only a subset.

Quick stand-in to feel it:

- A cook observed at work only ever makes the  3  dishes ordered daily - scores  99.5  on those.
- A  15 -dish test includes  12  dishes they almost never cook - overall score drops.

That's E. B would only say "among those  3 , the worst is the least-ordered" - telling you nothing about the  15 -dish test.

Answer: E

egmat · Answer

Hi SS3003,

I can see exactly where B feels tempting, so let me pin down the one move that breaks it.

The discrepancy you're explaining is between  two groups :
-  On-the-job observation  (Procedures tab): average  99.5  on battery tasks.
-  Six-month battery  (Trainee Report + Trainees by Session): Session 1 six-month (+) marks sit mostly in the 80s-90s, clearly lower.

A good explanation has to  bridge those two groups  - it must say something about the battery that the observation didn't cover.

Why B doesn't do that

Look carefully at B's wording: it talks about the tasks  "performed most poorly  during on-the-job observation ."  That means those weak tasks  were observed and were scored  - they are already baked into the  99.5  average. B doesn't pull anything out of the observation; it just says the lowest-scored observed tasks happen to be infrequent ones.

So B lives entirely  inside  the on-the-job observation. It never says a word about the six-month battery. Whatever B tells you about frequency, the observation average is still  99.5  and the battery is still lower - the gap is untouched.

That's the trap: B  feels  relevant because it links "frequency" to "poor performance," but a fact that stays inside one of the two groups can never explain a gap  between  them.

Why E does

E reaches across: the observation covered only a  small subset  of the battery's tasks. So during observation, trainees were scored only on the routine tasks they do well (-  99.5 ), while the full battery adds many harder tasks they score lower on. That directly connects the two groups and resolves the gap.

Quick test to keep:  in any "explain the discrepancy" question, ask  "does this option touch both sides of the comparison?"  If it stays inside one side (like B), it can't be the answer.

Answer: E

ReetArora · Answer

Please explain Q4 Statement 3

	Activities performed out of the controlled assessment environment were more prone to error.
	The tasks that trainees performed most poorly during on-the-job observation are those that the trainees perform least frequently on the job.
	Trainees completing the training battery at the six-month mark were much more likely to perform the tasks well.
	Trainees in Session 1 participated in extensive review of their training materials between the posttraining and six-month administrations of the training battery.
	On the job, the trainees are usually assigned only a small subset of the tasks included in the training battery.

Yes	No
		Each trainee achieved a post training score greater than 60.
		Session 2 was the session with the lowest average (arithmetic mean) pretraining score.
		In Session 3, the range of six-month scores is greater than the range of post training scores.

The PQ&R Corporation has developed a collection of training materials

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
		For at least one trainee, the posttraining score was greater than 3 times the pretraining score.
		The data for Session 1 exhibit a positive correlation between pretraining and posttraining scores.
		For the three sessions, the range of pretraining scores is least for Session 2.

GMAT Multi-Source Reasoning (MSR) Questions

The PQ&R Corporation has developed a collection of training materials

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