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.
Jun 1006:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..- Jun 10
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Scoring 715 on the GMAT Focus Edition requires more than just learning formulas, memorizing concepts, or solving hundreds of questions. In this episode, Nishant shares how he improved his GMAT preparation by focusing on application of concepts, and more. 
Jun 1111:00 AM EDT
-01:00 PM EDT
TTP GMAT OnDemand gives serious students 400+ hours of expert video instruction, the full TTP course, AI support, weekly office hours, and a 715+ score guarantee—all built for elite GMAT score improvement.
Jun 2207:30 PM EDT
-09:30 PM EDT
Master the GMAT with expert live instruction, a personalized study plan, and real-time support. Includes 40 hours of online classes plus 6 months of access to the TTP GMAT OnDemand video course. Class date: Mon/Wed June 22, 2026 →August 26, 2026
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
Moderators:
356 posts
