The table lists all the employees of the Metro Corporations human

Question

The table lists all the employees of the Metro Corporation’s human resources department. Each employee's immediate supervisor is identified by the supervisor’s employee ID number displayed in the last column on the right of the table. If one employee, say A, supervises another, say B, then A also supervises every employee supervised by B. Note that the hire date is given in the format month/day/year.

Employee ID    First name    Surname    Hire date    Supervisor's
employee ID   
  1  Sally  Lee  04/12/2002  6    2  Lauren  Schickler  03/16/2007  10    3  Jonathan  Ogura  08/10/1998  1    4  Shana  Serpaio  11/23/2000  9    5  Michele  Dockett  05/11/2002  11    6  Ben  Rivera  09/15/2003  14    7  Lee  Patel  08/07/2010  3    8  Eli  O'Neill  06/17/2009  11    9  Ondrea  Ribah  03/12/1992  1    10  Ben  Rubenstein  12/12/2005  6    11  Jonica  Diaz  01/30/2004  4

For each of the following, select  Yes  if it identifies an employee who, within the human resources department, supervises no one and who has at least 5 supervisors within the human resources department above her or him. Otherwise, select  No.

ID: 100458

sudhanshupradhan · Accepted Answer

Got this wrong as well. This is how i think its done:

- O'Neill:
-- First check: supervises no one: 8 (i.e. O'Neill's emp ID) is not present in column 5 -- condition 1 satisfied, now check 2
-- Second check: O'Neill's supervisors (following the supervisor employee IDs mentioned in the last column): 11 >> 4 >> 9 >> 1 >> 6 >> 14 (read as "No.11 supervises O'Neill, 4 supervises 9, 1 supervises 9, and so on) - 14 doesn't count has no.14 is not in HR so 11,4,9,1,6 = 5 supervisors -- check 2 satisfied hence "Yes"

- Patel:
-- First check: Patel's employee ID (i.e. 7) does not feature in column 5 -- cond 1 satisfied, check 2
-- Second check: same as before naming supervisor employee IDs for patel: 3 >> 1 >> 6 >> 14 therefore 4 supervisors -- cond. 2 not satisfied hence "No"

- Schickler:
-- First check: schickler's employee ID does not feature in column 5 -- cond 1 satisfied, check 2
-- Second check: same as before naming supervisor employee IDs for schickler: 10 >> 6 >> 14 therefor 2 supervisors -- cond. 2 no satisfied hence "No"

Surprisingly we dont need to use the hire data here. Any other thoughts?

raghaw · Answer

O'Neil : 8 <-- 11 <-- 4 <-- 9 <-- 1 <-- 6 <-- 14. Total 6 supervisors and he is supervisor of none so YES.
Patel : 7 <-- 3 <-- 1 <-- 6 <-- 14. Total 4 Supervisors, so NO. 
Schickler 2 <-- 10 <-- 6 <-- 14. Total 3 Supervisors, so NO.

sillyboy · Answer

Schikler's supervisor is 10
10's supervisor is 6
6's supervisor is 14

That's it. Schikler has only 3 supervisors. So, NO.

Zynxu · Answer

In order for the answer to be   then both statements for an individual must be true: They have no direct report and that they have 5 or more supervisors.

The first question: "Do they have a direct report?" can be determined by looking in the Supervisor Id list. If an employee's Id is listed in this column than they have a direct report. We can quickly determine that none of the 3 employees in question are listed. Therefore none of them have a direct report and therefore pass this first question.

The second question: "Do they have at least 5 supervisors in total". The question tells us that if A supervises B and B supervises C then A also supervises C. In which case C would have 2 supervisors.

ONeil(id=8) is supervised by 11 who is supervised by 4 who is supervised by 9 who is supervised by 1 who is supervised by 6 who is supervised by 14 who has no supervisor listed. I.E

Oneil:11->4->9->1->6->14 added together : 6 supervisors in total. Mark "Yes"
 
Patel(id=7): 3->1->6->14 added together: 4 Mark "No"
Schickler(id=2) 10->6->14 added together: 3 Mark "No"

arjun221199 · Answer

Does 14 mean that the person is not there as he is not in the table and we must not consider him? how does it work?

D3N0 · Answer

As per the data, 14 is not on the list of employees, just supervisors. that's all we need to know to answer. What happens outside the list is not relevant to the question.

A_Nishith · Answer

O'Neil : 8 <-- 11 <-- 4 <-- 9 <-- 1 <-- 6 <-- 14. Total 6 supervisors and he is supervisor of none so  YES .
Patel : 7 <-- 3 <-- 1 <-- 6 <-- 14. Total 4 Supervisors, so  NO. 
Schickler 2 <-- 10 <-- 6 <-- 14. Total 3 Supervisors, so  NO.

The table lists all the employees of the Metro Corporations human

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Employee ID	First name	Surname	Hire date	Supervisor's employee ID
1	Sally	Lee	04/12/2002	6
2	Lauren	Schickler	03/16/2007	10
3	Jonathan	Ogura	08/10/1998	1
4	Shana	Serpaio	11/23/2000	9
5	Michele	Dockett	05/11/2002	11
6	Ben	Rivera	09/15/2003	14
7	Lee	Patel	08/07/2010	3
8	Eli	O'Neill	06/17/2009	11
9	Ondrea	Ribah	03/12/1992	1
10	Ben	Rubenstein	12/12/2005	6
11	Jonica	Diaz	01/30/2004	4

GMAT Graphs and Tables (G&T) Questions

The table lists all the employees of the Metro Corporations human

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards