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 0410:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
What does test anxiety really look like on the GMAT? For many test takers, it does not look like a panic attack. Instead, it shows up as brain fog, rereading, negative comparisons, mental noise....
Sep 0201:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Take 30% off all study plans with code COURSEWORK - Expires on Monday 9/7
Sep 0609:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EST
Top scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful EA course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Perfect class schedule and easy course access for working professionals. Class starts Sundays Sept. 6, 2026.- Sep 07
12:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT - Sep 07
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
A complete walkthrough of GMAT Club’s free 12-week GMAT study plan: what you study each week, how progress and goals are tracked, how the error log works, and how your practice unlocks paid tools at no cost. - Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway - Sep 09
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Three MBA applications. Three rejections. No interview invites. A year later, Aman was admitted to Cambridge Judge, SMU, and IMD. In this episode of MBA Admit Stories, Aman shares how he rebuilt his MBA application... 
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite 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/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2108:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
10 Jun 2026, 01:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
I believe the statment 1 Q2 and statement 3 Q3 are really challenging and definitely 705+/755+ level, and they are just beautifully articulated. These two parts of the questions test all the 3 tabs data simultaneously. I completely missed them because I didn't pay much attention to Tab 2. That one tab totally shifts the narrative completely for Sarah. Because Sarah was already on the stimulants (as per Tab 2), her results were already compromised (Tab 3 last sentence). Statement 1 in Q2 states that noise disturbance has caused her results to mislead. However, she was already compromised. Nothing additional factor would make her results magically change. They would still make it to be misleading, if not they'd do it more because of the added noise distrubance. It acts like a strengthener that her results are still compromised and won't alter the initial results. Hence, it's No.
For Statment 3 Q3, because she had already taken the stimulants, her results were already misleading. Typically, if the Tab 2's data is omitted and this constraint was not considered, then the MSLT results from Tab 3 and the statements in Tab 1 completely destroys what the Statement 3 states about her. And the answer would have been False. Her average MSLT/mean MSLT is greater than 2. Tab 1 states that if it's less then 2 then the patient is not exaggerating and they are definitely suffering from fatigue rather than sleepiness, meaning the patient is actually suffering form fatigue rather than sleepiness. Because her means MSLT is not less than or equal to 2, we can say that she is definitely not suffering from fatigue rather than sleepiness. We can 100% with certainity say that she didn't suffer from fatigue rather than sleepliness.
Once we combine the constraint from Tab 2, the entire narrative shifts. As it states that because she is under stimulants and stimulants actually mislead the MSLT results, now there is a possiblilty that our initial result where we were certain that she is not suffering from fatigue rather than sleepliness is in doubt. There is definitely a possibility that she is suffering from fatigue rather than sleepiness. Hence, True.
The entire architecture of these two questions is just beautiful. There are several hidden constraints that could be easily missed out.
Bunuel
For Statment 3 Q3, because she had already taken the stimulants, her results were already misleading. Typically, if the Tab 2's data is omitted and this constraint was not considered, then the MSLT results from Tab 3 and the statements in Tab 1 completely destroys what the Statement 3 states about her. And the answer would have been False. Her average MSLT/mean MSLT is greater than 2. Tab 1 states that if it's less then 2 then the patient is not exaggerating and they are definitely suffering from fatigue rather than sleepiness, meaning the patient is actually suffering form fatigue rather than sleepiness. Because her means MSLT is not less than or equal to 2, we can say that she is definitely not suffering from fatigue rather than sleepiness. We can 100% with certainity say that she didn't suffer from fatigue rather than sleepliness.
Once we combine the constraint from Tab 2, the entire narrative shifts. As it states that because she is under stimulants and stimulants actually mislead the MSLT results, now there is a possiblilty that our initial result where we were certain that she is not suffering from fatigue rather than sleepliness is in doubt. There is definitely a possibility that she is suffering from fatigue rather than sleepiness. Hence, True.
The entire architecture of these two questions is just beautiful. There are several hidden constraints that could be easily missed out.
Bunuel
11 Jun 2026, 04:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
can someone explain question 2
11 Jun 2026, 07:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi priyalsethia,
The trick to Question 2 is doing it in two steps, and the question word that matters is "change." It isn't asking whether the data is misleading; it's asking whether the new scenario would flip any patient's status.
Step 1 - Lock each patient's current status (combine Tab 2 patient data + the Tab 3 note listing what makes results misleading: age under 16, noise, anxiety, atypical prior sleep, prescription stimulants/antidepressants):
- Ramesh (34, no meds) - not misleading
- Sara (prescription stimulant) - misleading
- Angel (prescription antidepressant) - misleading
- John (11, under 16) - misleading
- Steve (54, only OTC supplements) - not misleading
Test dates (Tab 3): Ramesh 6/16, Sara 6/17, Angel 6/18, John 6/20, Steve 6/21.
Step 2 - Check each scenario for a status flip:
(1) Noise on 6/17. Only Sara tested that day. But Sara is already misleading because of her stimulant. Adding noise can't move someone who's already in the "misleading" group - and no one else was tested on 6/17. Nobody flips - No.
(2) No one tested after 6/17 had anxiety. That's Angel, John, Steve. Anxiety was never claimed for them to begin with, so ruling it out removes nothing. Angel and John stay misleading (meds / age); Steve was already not misleading. No flip - No.
(3) Everyone under 50 had atypical prior sleep. That's Ramesh (34), Sara (23), John (11). Here's the key: Ramesh was the only "not misleading" person in that group - atypical prior sleep now pushes him into "misleading." One status flips - Yes.
So the answer is No, No, Yes.
The insight to carry: a scenario only counts as a change if it moves someone across the line. Anyone already misleading can't become "more" misleading, and a factor that was never in play can't be removed to matter.
Answer: No, No, Yes
The trick to Question 2 is doing it in two steps, and the question word that matters is "change." It isn't asking whether the data is misleading; it's asking whether the new scenario would flip any patient's status.
Step 1 - Lock each patient's current status (combine Tab 2 patient data + the Tab 3 note listing what makes results misleading: age under 16, noise, anxiety, atypical prior sleep, prescription stimulants/antidepressants):
- Ramesh (34, no meds) - not misleading
- Sara (prescription stimulant) - misleading
- Angel (prescription antidepressant) - misleading
- John (11, under 16) - misleading
- Steve (54, only OTC supplements) - not misleading
Test dates (Tab 3): Ramesh 6/16, Sara 6/17, Angel 6/18, John 6/20, Steve 6/21.
Step 2 - Check each scenario for a status flip:
(1) Noise on 6/17. Only Sara tested that day. But Sara is already misleading because of her stimulant. Adding noise can't move someone who's already in the "misleading" group - and no one else was tested on 6/17. Nobody flips - No.
(2) No one tested after 6/17 had anxiety. That's Angel, John, Steve. Anxiety was never claimed for them to begin with, so ruling it out removes nothing. Angel and John stay misleading (meds / age); Steve was already not misleading. No flip - No.
(3) Everyone under 50 had atypical prior sleep. That's Ramesh (34), Sara (23), John (11). Here's the key: Ramesh was the only "not misleading" person in that group - atypical prior sleep now pushes him into "misleading." One status flips - Yes.
So the answer is No, No, Yes.
The insight to carry: a scenario only counts as a change if it moves someone across the line. Anyone already misleading can't become "more" misleading, and a factor that was never in play can't be removed to matter.
Answer: No, No, Yes
priyalsethia
