For the years 2000 to 2011, the graph shows for the number of

Question

https://s3.amazonaws.com/wmx-api-production/courses/61212/images/Screenshot%202024-02-01%20120730.png

For the years 2000 to 2011, the graph shows for the number of successful cyber attacks that year on two companies, as well as the amount of money (in thousands of dollars) each company spent that year in prevention of cyber attacks. Neither company had experienced successful cyber attacks before the year 2000.

Use the drop-down menus to form the most accurate statements based on the given information.

From 2000 to 2011, the number of successful cyber attacks that Company A experienced was  GRAPH_1_PLACEHOLDER  the number of successful cyber attacks that Company B experienced.

The only year where increased spending coincided with a decrease in successful cyber attacks (compared to the previous year) for both companies was  GRAPH_2_PLACEHOLDER .

ID: 101119

Bismuth83 · Accepted Answer

1. We are first asked to compare the number of successful attacks on company A vs B.

2. To do this, we don't have to sum up all the attacks, but rather calculate the delta between A and B.

3. The graph tells us that the number of attacks on B is (+8+2+3+4-4-6-6-9+1) = -7 larger than for A. In other words, company A had more successful cyberattacks than company B.

4. Next, we are asked to find the year when both companies increased funding and the number of cyberattacks decreased.

5. Notice that funding only increases for both companies throughout the years.

6. The number of cyberattacks on A decreases only in years 2010 and 2011. The number of cyberattacks on B decreases only in years 2009 and 2011 (earlier years aren't important since funding was 0). So, our answer is 2011.

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

GraphCyberattack1.jpg [ 52.55 KiB | Viewed 13936 times ]

Attachment:

GraphCyberattack2.jpg [ 52.9 KiB | Viewed 13717 times ]

Taresh23 · Answer

Try adding the difference with -ve and +ve sign with reference to company A values; that way you have to add only once. If you get a +ve number means it is greater than the company B.

Hope it helps.

guddo · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION (OE):

RO1:

On the graph, for each of the years 2000-2011, the height of that year’s dot on the red line stands for the year’s number of successful cyber attacks on Company A, while the height of that year’s dot on the blue line stands for the year’s number of successful cyber attacks on Company B, as shown by the vertical scale on the graph’s left. Summing these numbers on the red line, we find that Company A experienced a total of 56 successful cyber attacks. Summing the numbers on the blue line, we find that Company B experienced a total of 49 such attacks. Thus, from 2000 to 2011, the number of successful cyber attacks Company A experienced was greater than the number Company B experienced.

The correct answer is greater than.

RO2:

As explained above, the height of each year’s dot on the red line stands for the year’s number of successful cyber attacks on Company A, while the height of each year’s dot on the blue line stands for the year’s number of successful cyber attacks on Company B. The graph shows that the only year when the number of successful cyber attacks declined for both companies was 2011. This alone is enough to tell that the only answer that could be correct in the second drop-down menu is 2011. But also note for 2011, the orange bar that stands for the number of thousands of dollars Company A spent that year to prevent cyber attacks and the blue bar that stands for the number of thousands of dollars Company B spent that year to prevent cyber attacks are both taller than the corresponding bars for 2010. That means both companies increased their annual spending to prevent cyber attacks from 2010 to 2011. Thus, 2011 was the only year shown in which such increased spending coincided with a decrease in cyber attacks for both companies.

The correct answer is 2011.

Razara · Answer

Would you guys suggest eyeballing the first question? I got the correct answer by watching at it but I wasn't really that sure. Adding up every point would be time consuming though. Also, if you did eyeball and had a methodical process which you'd care to explain I'd be glad.

Appreciate it.

Appreciate it.

AnukaS · Answer

RO1:

# of years A<B : 5
# of years A=B : 3
# of years A>B : 3

The years where A is less than B, the difference in value of cyber attacks is less than the years where A is greater than B. By approximation, Company A experienced greater number of successful cyber attacks that Company B experienced.

APram · Answer

This can also be calculated best by measuring the differences.
However this graph data was not close but I have seen graph questions where data be close enough where just by comparing number of years > or < we can predict wrongly.
Calculating Difference is a more sustainable approach is what I believe.

Scholar94 · Answer

For the first question eye balling works perfectly fine. Just look at the 2 trends. In the first part where the blue line has number higher than that of orange line, there are 4 times of such cases. In second phase of the line where the orange line has number higher than that of blue lines, there are also 4 cases of such. The last phase, is roughly the same for both line. This implies the first 2 phases will be used to decide which trend has a higher total number. Now if you watch the 2 phases closely, u will notice that the gap between the second phase was so much wider than that of the first phase across the 4 points. With this, we can be sure that total number will be higher for company A than for company B

Razara

Would you guys suggest eyeballing the first question? I got the correct answer by watching at it but I wasn't really that sure. Adding up every point would be time consuming though. Also, if you did eyeball and had a methodical process which you'd care to explain I'd be glad.

Appreciate it.

PocusFocus · Answer

Another way to see this is apreciating it as solid areas, I agree...no way to sum and calculate... it's so time consuming.

gemministorm · Answer

lol for 1st after summing up all and finding absolute difference, got to know it was just comparison.

soniasw16 · Answer

Can you share an example of questions where this method doesn't work?

luisdicampo · Answer

Deconstructing the Question

First, compare the total number of successful attacks on Company A and Company B from 2000 to 2011.

Second, find the only year in which, for both companies, prevention spending increased while successful attacks decreased compared with the previous year.

Step-by-step

For Company A, the attacks are:
 0+1+2+3+4+5+6+9+10+10+5+1=56

For Company B, the attacks are:
 8+3+5+3+8+5+2+3+4+1+5+2=49

So Company A had  more than  Company B.

Now check the yearly change in both spending and attacks.

From 2009 to 2010, Company A had higher spending and fewer attacks, but Company B had higher spending and more attacks, so this does not work.

From 2010 to 2011, both companies had higher spending and fewer attacks.

So the only year is  2011 .

Answer: greater than; 2011

egmat · Answer

Hi soniasw16,

I don't have full visibility into which specific method or shortcut you're referring to from the thread, so let me address this in the context of how GI questions like this one should be approached — and where shortcuts can trip you up.

For D1 (comparing total cyber attacks),  a common shortcut is to visually eyeball which company's line sits higher on the graph for most years and conclude that company has more total attacks. This works here because Company A's attack count is consistently higher. But this method  FAILS  when:
- One company has a much higher value in just a few years that offsets being lower in most other years. For example, if Company B had  2  years with attacks of  50 + while Company A hovered around  10  each year, the visual impression of 'Company A is usually higher' would be  misleading . You'd need to actually sum the values.

For D2 (identifying the year where both companies increased spending AND decreased attacks),  a shortcut is to look only at the spending lines and find where both go up, then check attacks. This generally works fine. But it can  FAIL  when:
- The graph has closely spaced values and you misread a flat line as an increase. For instance, if spending went from  48  to  49  (thousands), it might look flat on the graph but technically counts as an increase.
- You confuse which line belongs to which company —  always double-check the legend .

Key Insight:  The safest approach for ANY GI question is: ( 1 ) identify exactly which data points you need, ( 2 ) read each value carefully from the graph, and ( 3 ) then do the comparison or calculation.  Shortcuts based on visual impression are fine for a first pass, but  verify with actual values  when the answer choices are close or when cumulative totals are involved.

Answer: greater than, 2011

For the years 2000 to 2011, the graph shows for the number of

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 Graphs and Tables (G&T) Questions

For the years 2000 to 2011, the graph shows for the number of

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