Last visit was: 21 May 2024, 18:05 It is currently 21 May 2024, 18:05
Toolkit
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

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.

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

Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14033
Own Kudos [?]: 33998 [8]
Given Kudos: 5806
GPA: 3.62
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14033
Own Kudos [?]: 33998 [3]
Given Kudos: 5806
GPA: 3.62
General Discussion
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Jul 2018
Posts: 348
Own Kudos [?]: 429 [0]
Given Kudos: 94
Retired Moderator
Joined: 05 May 2016
Posts: 782
Own Kudos [?]: 687 [0]
Given Kudos: 1316
Location: India
Re: The PQ&R Corporation has developed a collection of training materials [#permalink]
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.

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.

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.

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.
Non-Human User
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
Posts: 33141
Own Kudos [?]: 829 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: The PQ&R Corporation has developed a collection of training materials [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club BumpBot!

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.
Re: The PQ&R Corporation has developed a collection of training materials [#permalink]
Moderators:
Math Expert
93373 posts
DI Forum Moderator
1029 posts
RC & DI Moderator
11282 posts