It is currently 18 Jan 2018, 02:18

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Expert Post
3 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7863

Kudos [?]: 18465 [3], given: 237

Location: Pune, India
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Sep 2014, 23:04
3
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
mneeti wrote:
Hi Karishma, to me answer choice (B) looks more like an inference; since second line very clearly says 90% of cancellations are from the districts controlled by the opposition. This indirectly means that most of the cancellations were not from the president's districts i.e. answer choice (B), then why should we classify it as an assumption and not inference?

On the contrary, (A) looks a better assumption to me if you apply negating rule.

Please clarify my doubts. Thank you.



Another way to figure out an assumption is inserting it in the argument with the premises and then checking whether the conclusion needs the assumption.

Argument:
There are districts controlled by the President and there are some controlled by the opposition parties.
The President canceled some projects.
90% of those were located in the opposition party districts. So opposition has been crying foul.
The secretary is defending the President. He says that all of these were identified as wasteful by non partisan auditors.
Most of the wasteful projects identified were from opposition's districts. (That is why most of the canceled projects are from opposition's districts)

Conclusion: the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

Mind you, you already have the conclusion of the argument and that is "President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics". But to prove that this is true, we need to know that most wasteful projects identified were from opposition's districts. What if the non partisan auditors identified 100 projects as wasteful out of which 90 were from President's districts but the President chose to cancel the rest of the 10 wasteful projects (which were from opposition's districts). In this case, the President is motivated by politics, right? So we need to know that the wasteful projects were predominantly from opposition's districts only.

As for why (A) is not an assumption, please see my post right above yours.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 18465 [3], given: 237

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: How easy it is?
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 174

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V27
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Operations (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Sep 2014, 15:11
For Secretary's argument to hold true one obvious assumption is that the auditor's report, on the basis of which she is making the argument, is not false or influenced. The report could have been influenced if he would have declared only the opposition party districts as wasteful and in that case opposition had all the right to cry foul and Scretary's argument will not hold its ground.

Option B correctly addresses this possible weak link of the argument.

Option A confuses us because our attention gets diverted to all other not so relevant information given in the question. The main point is the relationship between the premise (auditor's report) and the conclusion (President not biased in his decision).

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 174

Intern
Intern
avatar
Status: Engineering consultant
Joined: 13 Jul 2014
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 19

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V32
CAT Tests
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2014, 07:55
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
thangvietnam wrote:
Thank you veritas experts.
for many types of question such as assumption, evaluate, strengthen and weaken, prethinking an assumption is important step. do you suggest any tips, or articles for improving prethinking. your prethinking in this question is great.


Look at things from a critical viewpoint. Read articles related to critic's views, letters to the editor, political dialogues - anything and everything that will help you understand the various different view points. Try to find out what can strengthen/weaken others' arguments. Imagine that you are debating with someone - you need to think of counter points. It comes with practice.
But mind you, don't waste too much time trying to pre-think. If nothing comes to mind, just move on to the options. The options will give you a clue.


I have just one question. Its clearly mentioned in argument that 90% of projects were from Opposition's controlled districts. So clearly 10% remaining is in President's party controlled district. This so straightforward and say obvious thing which has no alternative. Answer suggest the same just by re-framing words. Why it should an assumption if argument does not have any alternative?
In any argument we have many obvious assumptions without any alternative. What shall we do in such cases?

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 19

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7863

Kudos [?]: 18465 [1], given: 237

Location: Pune, India
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Oct 2014, 19:51
1
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
Rudranket wrote:

I have just one question. Its clearly mentioned in argument that 90% of projects were from Opposition's controlled districts. So clearly 10% remaining is in President's party controlled district. This so straightforward and say obvious thing which has no alternative. Answer suggest the same just by re-framing words. Why it should an assumption if argument does not have any alternative?
In any argument we have many obvious assumptions without any alternative. What shall we do in such cases?


The argument only tells you that 90% of the canceled projects are from opposition's districts. It does not tell you that90% of projects identified as wasteful are from opposition's districts. That is given by option (B).

These are two different things. Non biased analysts identify projects which are wasteful. Then the govt decides which of those to cancel.

Decision to cancel projects would have been fair only if most projects identified as wasteful were from opposition's districts since most projects canceled are from opposition's districts.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 18465 [1], given: 237

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 13 May 2014
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Oct 2014, 21:58
I thought that answer A will be more appropriated.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2015
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 8

Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jan 2015, 03:53
I have a question .. How can b be an assumption when it's already given that 90 percent of such projects were canceled belonged to districts where opposition ruled . That makes it a premise?

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 8

Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7863

Kudos [?]: 18465 [0], given: 237

Location: Pune, India
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Feb 2015, 22:39
prachisal wrote:
I have a question .. How can b be an assumption when it's already given that 90 percent of such projects were canceled belonged to districts where opposition ruled . That makes it a premise?


I have already explained this above in this post: press-secretary-our-critics-claim-that-the-president-s-16458-20.html#p1427587
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for $199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 18465 [0], given: 237

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2015
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 4

Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Feb 2015, 00:05
It´s B only. Somehow I missed the not part in that option..

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 4

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 25 Apr 2013
Posts: 66

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 12

Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Feb 2015, 23:39
I consider myself to be quite decent in Assumptions, but it took me some time to arrive at option B; and that too by process of elimination. Only now I realize why it has to be B.

90% of the projects cancelled were in districts controlled by opposition parties. Press secretary claims this is "normal" (non-vindictive); but what about the following scenario:

Mostly highway projects identified as wasteful, by these respected nonpartisan auditors, were in districts controlled by the President's party.

If that's the case, but still 90% of the projects cancelled were in districts controlled by opposition parties, then this basically pokes holes in the Press secretary claims this is "normal" (non-vindictive).

Hence, for President's actions to be "normal" (non-vindictive), it has to be the assumption that most highway projects identified as wasteful, by these respected nonpartisan auditors, were NOT in districts controlled by the President's party.

If I could summarize it, what we need to careful about, in this argument is that the argument never claims that ALL projects identified as wasteful, by respected nonpartisan auditors, were cancelled by the President. We are just given the information that all projects cancelled by the President were those identified as wasteful, by respected nonpartisan auditors.

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 12

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 31 Jan 2015
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 10

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Apr 2015, 16:04
IMO the Assumption Negation of B helped me understand the logic here best.

90% of the projects cancelled by the President's plan were in opposition party districts.
This led critics to claim that the President was merely looking to punish these districts led by opposition leaders.
The secretary states, all of the cancelled projects were identified as wasteful in a unbiased report.
Thus, the President's plan was sound and motivated by budgetary policy

I need an additional premise that fits well with the unbiased report that the cancelled projects (90% of which are in opposition districts) were justified.

Negation of B: The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report WERE mostly in districts controlled by the President's Party. If MOST (greater than 50%) of the projects in the report were in the President's supporting districts, and he (or she... its 2015) still chose to cancel 90% of the projects identified in opposition districts, the argument would fall apart. This would strengthen the critics view that the President demonstrated a vindictive desire to punish the opposition districts. Regardless of the fact that the majority of the justified closures were in the President's supporting districts, the President still chose to cancel a larger portion of the opposition party's projects.

- I rarely post but it took a while to understand the logic on this one. Hope this helps.

-Brian

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 10

VP
VP
avatar
S
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 1380

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 916

Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 May 2015, 00:30
HongHu wrote:
Opposing argument: President carries partisan politics.
Fact: 90% project cancelled are by opposing party.
Counter argument: All the cancelled project have been identified as bad by a nonpartisan auditor.

What is the missing link here?

What if the auditor has identified many projects by the controlling party as well as by the opposing party as wasteful and the president only cancels the opposing party ones?

To make the press secretary's argument work one has to make the assumption that there aren't a lot of bad projects in the controling party district in the auditor's report.

Therefore (B) would be the correct answer.


great explanation

the criticization of the argurment is the key to cr section. if we do not criticize, we even can not understand the answer when it is shown. if we criticize, we can solve the problem.

the above explanation is, in fact, a criticization.

thank you honghu.
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Kudos [?]: 176 [0], given: 916

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Sep 2014
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2015, 22:45
I'm Still not able to get this answer can some one help please. I have my Gmat exam tomorrow, just not able to deal with difficult level CR questions.

Thanks
Laxmi

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

CR Forum Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: The best is yet to come.....
Joined: 10 Mar 2013
Posts: 513

Kudos [?]: 245 [0], given: 201

GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Nov 2015, 22:16
If most of the wasteful projects are in opposition districts then it is natural that most of the projects cancelled would be from opposition districts. On the other hand, if most of the wasteful projects are in opposition districts but president cancelled most of the projects of his party’s district then it would be partisan.
So, ans would be B.
_________________

Hasan Mahmud

Kudos [?]: 245 [0], given: 201

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 07 Jun 2015
Posts: 90

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 9

WE: Design (Aerospace and Defense)
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Dec 2015, 02:01
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.


There are two conclusions here

C1.Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.

C2.So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

What I understand is C2 is the press secretary's conclusion

Quote:
Option B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party
. is the restatement of premise
Quote:
''the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts''.


I still wonder how B can be the answer!!

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 9

3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Mar 2015
Posts: 103

Kudos [?]: 27 [3], given: 92

Concentration: Leadership, Finance
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Mar 2016, 06:54
3
This post received
KUDOS
Tricky question !! I spent a lot of time trying to figure out authors assumption till i realized that the question is not asking authors assumption.

We need to find - assumption on which the press secretary’s argument depends?
Note it is NOT asking authors assumption.

Press secretary Conclusion: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties

So B.

No doubt we get confused as to why B when its already mentioned in the passage.

Hope this helps :)

Kudos [?]: 27 [3], given: 92

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Always try to face your worst fear because nothing GOOD comes easy. You must be UNCOMFORTABLE to get to your COMFORT ZONE
Joined: 15 Aug 2014
Posts: 353

Kudos [?]: 99 [1], given: 472

Concentration: Marketing, Technology
GMAT 1: 570 Q44 V25
GMAT 2: 600 Q48 V25
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 May 2016, 22:08
1
This post received
KUDOS
Marcab wrote:
Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary’s argument depends?

A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
C. The number of projects canceled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
D. The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.


Below explanation of Ron helps to someone who get confused to this question like me!

The point is that the 90% statistic would represent a possible bias, unless 90% of all the wasteful projects were in those districts. I.e., if the cancellation of those projects were at all out of proportion with their presence in those districts, then an accusation of bias would be justified.
If that's too confusing, then try negating (B).
If you negate that premise, you get "Most of the wasteful projects were in the president's districts". If that's true, then the fact that 90% of the cancelled projects were in opposition districts"”which didn't even contain most of the wasteful projects"”would very clearly demonstrate a political bias, thus destroying the argument.
_________________

"When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe, then you’ll be successful.” - Eric Thomas

I need to work on timing badly!!

Kudos [?]: 99 [1], given: 472

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10262

Kudos [?]: 287 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 May 2016, 10:02
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 287 [0], given: 0

Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 02 May 2015
Posts: 260

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 23

Location: South Africa
Concentration: International Business, Organizational Behavior
GPA: 3.49
WE: Web Development (Insurance)
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jun 2016, 21:30
pb_india wrote:
Press secretary: Our critics claim that the President's recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90% of the projects cancelled were in such districts. But all of the cancelled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President's choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary's argument depends?
A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President's party.
C. The number of projects cancelled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
D. Nonpartisan auditors were President's friends.
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessment of government projects.



PS : The cancelled projects are not motivated by politics because all of them have been identified by an independent auditor

But we have no information about the projects that were identified as wasteful yet were not cancelled.

So the perfect assumption would be

" There were no wasteful projects in the president's district that were identified as wasteful"

Looking at the option, B comes the closest
_________________

Kudos if I helped ;)

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 23

4 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 645

Kudos [?]: 409 [4], given: 36

GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jun 2016, 00:10
4
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Answer is B
We have to find assumptions
Assumption is a premise that is not written explicitly.
If we add assumption to the argument our argument will become fool proof and devoid of criticism.

lets write the argument is simplest form first

Premise 1) Critics claims president is punishing opposition by cancelling project in their cities
Premise 2) Critics claims 90 % projects in opposition cities were cancelled
Premise 3) Independent auditor say projects were cancelled because they were wasteful

Conclusion ) President is saving money and not punishing opponents by cancelling MOST of the projects. <==== Now this is the line that the answer should defend or strengthen at any cost. If this line can be shown to be false then argument fails. You have to choose a answer that must protect, defend, save this line at any cost. THIS LINE IS THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND NO DOUBT SHOULD EVER FALL ON IT .. EVER !!!!!

Now think what will the opponent will you say to weaken the conclusion. He will probably say :- Yeah !! President .. !! are you saving money ? you save money by cancelling most of the projects in my city.. IF this is how you save money why don't you cancel most project in your city ?? huh.. lets be fair president.. I dare you to cancel most of project in your city.

bamm.. now the opposition has challenged the conclusion. now The president have to quickly save the conclusion otherwise the argument will wall apart


President saves the argument by saying:- "But I don't have most of the project in my city. ha ha .. how can i eat 40 bananas if i have only 1 banana. My city does not have most of the projects. So i cannot cancel most of the projects in my city"

Now the critic is speechless. He cannot attack the president anymore by saying that most of the projects that are being cancelled are in his city are to punish him.
If the number of projects was equal in critics city and presidents city and the president only cancelled critics project, then one can say president is clearly punishing the opponent. But this is not the case.

so this is what the option B does
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
in other words
The presidents city has either no or less projects.

NOW THE ARGUMENT IS SAFE AND THUS (B) IS THE ANSWER

THIS TECHNIQUE IS CALLED A DEFENDER ASSUMPTION. YOU CAN READ MORE ABOUT IT POWERSCORE CR BIBLE

Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties. They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts. But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors. So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary’s argument depends?

A. Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.
B. The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.
C. The number of projects canceled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.
D. The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.
E. Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.

_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.


Last edited by LogicGuru1 on 31 Aug 2016, 22:26, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 409 [4], given: 36

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Jun 2016
Posts: 49

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 116

GPA: 4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jun 2016, 04:05
The link between "cancelled" and "wasteful".

B it is.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 116

Re: Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway   [#permalink] 27 Jun 2016, 04:05

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 72 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Press Secretary: Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.