One quant and one verbal question will be posted each day starting on

Winners:

igloo and rajathpanta

Official Explanation:

Answer is B

This problem demonstrates a type of data flaw that you might not expect – which is exactly what the author of a hard question wants, for you to accept a faulty conclusion because you did not critically examine the data. What’s the flaw here? In a five-point scale, a predicted ‘4’ has multiple outcomes: a 5 (exceeding expectations and bringing the group average up), a 4 (meeting expectations, keeping the average the same), or a 3 or below (underperforming the prediction, bringing the average down). But a predicted ‘5’ can only live up to expectations – it cannot exceed them. Anything other than a 5 brings the expected average down. So while the experts’ misevaluations of a 4-star prospect might be balanced out by some 5s to counter 3s, their evaluations of a 5-star prospect all count in the same downward direction. Choice B exposes this flaw – the experts may have missed just as often with 3 and 4 star players, but because they could miss on either side of the predicted value the average is close to what they predicted.For your study, this is important – especially with the Integrated Reasoning section included, the GMAT will feature plenty of problems in which statistics are used improperly, to draw invalid conclusions. Be skeptical of statistics and train yourself to look for data flaws, both on the GMAT and in business in general.