The track coach at a particular school had her student athletes practi

Question

The track coach at a particular school had her student athletes practice running outside of scheduled training sessions and report details to her. She had them report speed as kilometers run divided by time running, whether they wore running shoes or other athletic shoes, whether they ran on the school track or not, and whether the wind was ≥ 3 meters per second (m/s) or < 3 m/s. She found that, overall, reports of greater than average speeds correlated with reports of both winds < 3 m/s and wearing running shoes. She also found that reports of less than average speeds correlated with reports of both winds ≥ 3 m/s and wearing shoes other than running shoes. The coach hypothesizes that the wind, and not the type of shoes worn, was responsible for the difference in speed.

The hypothesis indicates that the coach would expect speeds associated with reports of 1 to be less than speeds associated with reports of 2

Select for 1 and for 2 the options that create the statement that most accurately reflects the information provided. Make only two selections, one in each column.

The hypothesis indicates that the coach would expect speeds associated with reports of   1   to be less than speeds associated with reports of   2

Select for 1 and for 2 the options that create the statement that most accurately reflects the information provided. Make only two selections, one in each column.

Bismuth83 · Accepted Answer

1. We are asked to  find 2 statements that best fill in the blanks .

2. They must be comparable in expected speed based on the hypothesis. "The coach hypothesizes that the wind, and not the type of shoes worn, was responsible for the difference in speed." In other words, the wind affects the speed while shoes don't. It is also unknown the effect of where they ran. Based on this and the reports, an increase in wind speed gives a negative relationship with the expected speed.

3. For the two statements to fit, they need to both talk about the wind speed. We are left with:

- running on the school track and wind < 3 m/s
 - wearing running shoes and wind < 3 m/s
 - wearing running shoes and wind ≥ 3 m/s

4. The statement "running on the school track and wind < 3 m/s" can't be compared with the others because the effect of where they are running is unknown.

5. Using the hypothesis, we arrive with the answer: The hypothesis indicates that the coach would expect speeds associated with reports of   wearing running shoes and wind ≥ 3 m/s   to be less than speeds associated with reports of   wearing running shoes and wind < 3 m/s  .

soumyadeeptaghosh · Answer

Can someone explain what the problem statement wants from us and how do we answer these?

GmatTest2026 · Answer

It is mentioned in the passage that reports of greater than average speeds correlated with reports of both winds < 3 m/s and wearing running shoes. She also found that reports of less-than-average speeds correlated with reports of both winds ≥ 3 m/s and wearing shoes other than running shoes. So, the answer to 1 is option E and 2 is option D.

Usernamevisible · Answer

Option Evaluation
1 = wearing running shoes and wind ≥ 3 m/s 
Same shoes can be compared with another running-shoe condition.
High wind predicts lower speed.
Transferable: Whenever a causal claim says one factor matters, hold everything else constant.
2 = wearing running shoes and wind < 3 m/s 
Same shoes, only wind changes.
Low wind predicts higher speed.
Directly tests the hypothesis.
Transferable: Best support for causation changes only the claimed cause.
Why the others are wrong

running on the school track and wind < 3 m/s

Introduces track, a new variable.
Shoe type isn't controlled.
Cannot isolate wind.
Lesson: Eliminate options adding unnecessary variables.

wearing shoes other than running shoes and running on the school track

No wind information.
Tests shoes/track, not wind.
Lesson: If the claimed cause is missing, eliminate.

wearing running shoes and running on the school track

No wind information.
Cannot compare high vs low wind.
Lesson: If an option omits the causal variable, it cannot test the hypothesis.

MrMaxMan · Answer

For column 2 you may be tempted to select the first row, but notice that the stats are abour running on or off the track, and the better option for column 1, which is the bottom row, doesn't include information about the track. So by selecting the first row for option 2 you would be introducing a variable that is not in the 1st answer. Select the second to bottom row to eliminate variables and keep information consistent.

The track coach at a particular school had her student athletes practi

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

GMAT Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

The track coach at a particular school had her student athletes practi

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