Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 1801:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Sep 1712:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Thought your job leaves no time for GMAT prep? After multiple GMAT attempts and a demanding consulting job, Kshitij improved to 695 in under 2 months. Learn the mindset shifts, study strategy, and execution changes that made the breakthrough possible.
Sep 1808:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Sep 1902:30 AM EDT
-03:30 AM EDT
Tejas studied hard but kept repeating the same mistakes. After 3 attempts at 645, a focused 4-week strategy helped him identify and fix what was holding him back—leading to a 695 with just 12–15 hours of study per week.
Sep 2601:00 PM EDT
-04:00 PM EDT
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included. Class starts Saturdays Sept. 26, 2026 - Dec. 19, 2026, 1:00pm-4:00pm ES
Sep 2911:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
" Description: Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thur Sept. 29, 2026 - Dec. 3, 2026, 11:00am-1:00pm EST
A city's planning committee is allocating infrastructure development funds among four geographical areas. The committee evaluated each area with respect to each of the following aspects:
Each area received a rating from A+ to E for each aspect evaluated. Letters earlier in the alphabet represent higher ratings. A plus following a letter indicates a slightly higher rating than the letter alone, while a minus indicates a slightly lower rating.
- the state of existing infrastructure
- capacity for economic development
- readiness for economic development
- projected 25-year level of economic growth
- likely percentage return on investment (ROI) in infrastructure
Each area received a rating from A+ to E for each aspect evaluated. Letters earlier in the alphabet represent higher ratings. A plus following a letter indicates a slightly higher rating than the letter alone, while a minus indicates a slightly lower rating.
Area 2: Yes
Area 3: Yes
Area 4: No
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
93% (01:59) correct
7%
(02:25)
wrong
based on 1224
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
1. For each of the following areas, select Yes if the information provided indicates that the area's projected 25-year economic growth received a higher rating than that of Area 1. Otherwise, select No.
| Yes | No | |
| Area 2 | ||
| Area 3 | ||
| Area 4 |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
Area 2: Yes
Area 3: Yes
Area 4: No
Mr. Hernandez: Yes
Mr. Li: No
Ms. Tansey: Yes
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
79% (01:56) correct
21%
(02:20)
wrong
based on 1330
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
2. For each of the following committee members, select Yes if the information provided suggests that the member would probably give Area 2 a greater priority over Area 3 for infrastructure funding. Otherwise, select No.
| Yes | No | |
| Mr. Hernandez | ||
| Mr. Li | ||
| Ms. Tansey |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
Mr. Hernandez: Yes
Mr. Li: No
Ms. Tansey: Yes
Rating E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
76% (01:02) correct
24%
(01:07)
wrong
based on 1277
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
3. The area that Ms. Wahid would prefer to receive top priority for infrastructure funding received which one of the following ratings for its readiness for economic development?
| Rating A | |
| Rating B | |
| Rating C | |
| Rating D | |
| Rating E |
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
Rating E
Attachment:
3.jpg [ 89.43 KiB | Viewed 12689 times ]
03 Oct 2021, 03:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
Q1: 1. For each of the following areas, select Yes if the information provided indicates that the area's projected 25-year economic growth received a higher rating than that of Area 1. Otherwise, select No.
Projected 25-year economic growth:
Area 2: B vs C+ = Yes
Area 3: A+ vs C+ = Yes
Area 4: E vs C+ = No
2. For each of the following committee members, select Yes if the information provided suggests that the member would probably give Area 2 a greater priority over Area 3 for infrastructure funding. Otherwise, select No.
Mr. Hernandez: B vs B- = Yes
Mr. Li: B vs D = No & B vs A+ = No
Ms. Tansey: A vs C+ = Yes & C vs D = Yes
3. The area that Ms. Wahid would prefer to receive top priority for infrastructure funding received which one of the following ratings for its readiness for economic development?
Ms. Wahid argued that areas that are expected to yield a larger percentage return on infrastructure investment should have a higher priority
Area 4 - > readiness for economic development: E
Projected 25-year economic growth:
Area 2: B vs C+ = Yes
Area 3: A+ vs C+ = Yes
Area 4: E vs C+ = No
2. For each of the following committee members, select Yes if the information provided suggests that the member would probably give Area 2 a greater priority over Area 3 for infrastructure funding. Otherwise, select No.
Mr. Hernandez: B vs B- = Yes
Mr. Li: B vs D = No & B vs A+ = No
Ms. Tansey: A vs C+ = Yes & C vs D = Yes
3. The area that Ms. Wahid would prefer to receive top priority for infrastructure funding received which one of the following ratings for its readiness for economic development?
Ms. Wahid argued that areas that are expected to yield a larger percentage return on infrastructure investment should have a higher priority
Area 4 - > readiness for economic development: E
DhruvBadaya
Joined: 27 Feb 2024
Last visit: 03 Sep 2026
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 39
Location: India
Schools: IIMA '25 (II)
02 Mar 2024, 03:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
ANSWER 1
For each of the following areas, select Yes if the information provided indicates that the area's projected 25-year economic growth received a higher rating than that of Area 1. Otherwise, select No.
Area 2: Yes
Area 3: Yes
Area 4: No
The answer is Yes for Area 2 and Area 3 because the passage states that both of these areas received a higher rating for projected 25-year economic growth than Area 1. The answer is No for Area 4 because the passage does not mention the rating for Area 4's projected 25-year economic growth relative to Area 1.
ANSWER 2
For each of the following committee members, select Yes if the information provided suggests that the member would probably give Area 2 a greater priority over Area 3 for infrastructure funding. Otherwise, select No.
Mr. Hernandez: Yes
Mr. Li: No
Ms. Tansey: Yes
Mr. Hernandez: Mr. Hernandez argued for prioritizing allocation of funding to the areas that received higher overall ratings from the committee. Since Area 2 has a higher overall rating (B) than Area 3 (B-), Mr. Hernandez would likely give Area 2 a greater priority.
Mr. Li: Mr. Li argued for prioritizing allocation of funding based on need, determined as follows: the lower the rating for the state of existing infrastructure and the higher the rating for projected 25-year economic growth, the greater the need. Because Area 3 has a lower rating for state of existing infrastructure (D) than Area 2 (B), and a higher rating for projected 25-year economic growth (A+) than Area 2 (B), Mr. Li would likely give Area 3 a greater priority.
Ms. Tansey: Ms. Tansey argued for prioritizing allocation of funding to areas that have been given higher ratings for both capacity and readiness for economic development. Since Area 2 has a higher rating for economic development readiness (C) than Area 3 (C-), Ms. Tansey would also likely give Area 2 a greater priority.
ANSWER 3
The area that Ms. Wahid would prefer to receive top priority for infrastructure funding received which one of the following ratings for its readiness for economic development?
Ms. Wahid argued that areas that are expected to yield a larger percentage return on infrastructure investment should have a higher priority. Hence, highest priority will be given to Area 4, with the rating E.
Hence, answer is Rating E
For each of the following areas, select Yes if the information provided indicates that the area's projected 25-year economic growth received a higher rating than that of Area 1. Otherwise, select No.
Area 2: Yes
Area 3: Yes
Area 4: No
The answer is Yes for Area 2 and Area 3 because the passage states that both of these areas received a higher rating for projected 25-year economic growth than Area 1. The answer is No for Area 4 because the passage does not mention the rating for Area 4's projected 25-year economic growth relative to Area 1.
ANSWER 2
For each of the following committee members, select Yes if the information provided suggests that the member would probably give Area 2 a greater priority over Area 3 for infrastructure funding. Otherwise, select No.
Mr. Hernandez: Yes
Mr. Li: No
Ms. Tansey: Yes
Mr. Hernandez: Mr. Hernandez argued for prioritizing allocation of funding to the areas that received higher overall ratings from the committee. Since Area 2 has a higher overall rating (B) than Area 3 (B-), Mr. Hernandez would likely give Area 2 a greater priority.
Mr. Li: Mr. Li argued for prioritizing allocation of funding based on need, determined as follows: the lower the rating for the state of existing infrastructure and the higher the rating for projected 25-year economic growth, the greater the need. Because Area 3 has a lower rating for state of existing infrastructure (D) than Area 2 (B), and a higher rating for projected 25-year economic growth (A+) than Area 2 (B), Mr. Li would likely give Area 3 a greater priority.
Ms. Tansey: Ms. Tansey argued for prioritizing allocation of funding to areas that have been given higher ratings for both capacity and readiness for economic development. Since Area 2 has a higher rating for economic development readiness (C) than Area 3 (C-), Ms. Tansey would also likely give Area 2 a greater priority.
ANSWER 3
The area that Ms. Wahid would prefer to receive top priority for infrastructure funding received which one of the following ratings for its readiness for economic development?
Ms. Wahid argued that areas that are expected to yield a larger percentage return on infrastructure investment should have a higher priority. Hence, highest priority will be given to Area 4, with the rating E.
Hence, answer is Rating E
