|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
27 Feb 2016, 20:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
Puzzled by two IR question in Princeton's GMAT.
1) Reward returning customer ≠ Reward for loyalty?
Here's the excerpt from the Multi-source Reasoning about bank CD offering (Item 8, IR Drill 1, pg.408-409),
The question asks whether the information in the memo supports the following inference,
"Certain bank policies are designed to reward preferred customers for their loyalty."
I answered YES, since returning customers (with purchase prior to this) enjoy additional 0.1% bonus.
However, the answer key (NO) states something that I don't understand at all,
"It is true that the stated policy offers a bonus available to preferred customers but not to new customers. There is no reference however to this being a reward for loyalty. Rather, the stated purpose is to increase the overall stability of the bank's portfolio. This statement introduces outside information. "
It's ridiculous to say that rewarding returning customers does not equate to rewarding for loyalty. How does Princeton (or GMAC) define "outside information" or "out of scope"?
2) "Near equal" has a range of 3-5% difference?
Another Table Analysis in the same drill poses an unacceptable assumption as well (Item 9, IR Drill 1, pg.410-411).
The table displays Popular Vote % and Electoral Vote % of several US presidents.
The question asks whether this statement is true,
"The same President was elected in the two election years in which the winner's percentage of the popular vote and percentage of the electoral vote were most nearly equal."
I answered NO, as I didn't see any entry within 1% difference.
And yes, the answer turned out to be YES, with the following explanation,
"There are three elections, 2000, 1976, and 2004, in which the two values are within about 5 points of each other ... So 2000 and 2004 are the two years in which the percentage differ the least. Since George W. Bush was elected both years, it is true that ... "
How could it be in earth that 3% is considered "most nearly equal"? It is just an unfair assumption.
Really feel lost now. Do I live in a different world from GMAC and the publishers?
1) Reward returning customer ≠ Reward for loyalty?
Here's the excerpt from the Multi-source Reasoning about bank CD offering (Item 8, IR Drill 1, pg.408-409),
Quote:
The question asks whether the information in the memo supports the following inference,
"Certain bank policies are designed to reward preferred customers for their loyalty."
I answered YES, since returning customers (with purchase prior to this) enjoy additional 0.1% bonus.
However, the answer key (NO) states something that I don't understand at all,
"It is true that the stated policy offers a bonus available to preferred customers but not to new customers. There is no reference however to this being a reward for loyalty. Rather, the stated purpose is to increase the overall stability of the bank's portfolio. This statement introduces outside information. "
It's ridiculous to say that rewarding returning customers does not equate to rewarding for loyalty. How does Princeton (or GMAC) define "outside information" or "out of scope"?
2) "Near equal" has a range of 3-5% difference?
Another Table Analysis in the same drill poses an unacceptable assumption as well (Item 9, IR Drill 1, pg.410-411).
The table displays Popular Vote % and Electoral Vote % of several US presidents.
Quote:
The question asks whether this statement is true,
"The same President was elected in the two election years in which the winner's percentage of the popular vote and percentage of the electoral vote were most nearly equal."
I answered NO, as I didn't see any entry within 1% difference.
And yes, the answer turned out to be YES, with the following explanation,
"There are three elections, 2000, 1976, and 2004, in which the two values are within about 5 points of each other ... So 2000 and 2004 are the two years in which the percentage differ the least. Since George W. Bush was elected both years, it is true that ... "
How could it be in earth that 3% is considered "most nearly equal"? It is just an unfair assumption.
Really feel lost now. Do I live in a different world from GMAC and the publishers?
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Data Insights Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
25 Mar 2016, 04:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
For the first question, certain bank policies do reward preferred customers, that's correct. There is no information in the statement that links "preferred customers" with "loyal customers". You can be a preferred customer without being a loyal one and vice-versa.
For instance, if I had a large amount of money at the bank in question (let's say I'm their biggest account), but an even larger amounts at other banks and I did all my banking activities with the other banks, then I wouldn't be a loyal customer. Preferred, yes, but not loyal. On the flip side if I had very little money to my name and put it all in the bank in question (let's say smallest account there), and did all my business with this bank (as I don't have enough money to go to another), then I would be a loyal customer. Preferred? No.
For the second I think you've just misinterpreted the question. It's asking you to identify the two years when the popular vote % and the electoral vote % are most nearly equal. That is to say you should find the difference between the electoral vote % and popular vote %, identify the two years where the difference between these two metrics is closest to 0, and check if the same president was elected during both years.
For instance, if I had a large amount of money at the bank in question (let's say I'm their biggest account), but an even larger amounts at other banks and I did all my banking activities with the other banks, then I wouldn't be a loyal customer. Preferred, yes, but not loyal. On the flip side if I had very little money to my name and put it all in the bank in question (let's say smallest account there), and did all my business with this bank (as I don't have enough money to go to another), then I would be a loyal customer. Preferred? No.
For the second I think you've just misinterpreted the question. It's asking you to identify the two years when the popular vote % and the electoral vote % are most nearly equal. That is to say you should find the difference between the electoral vote % and popular vote %, identify the two years where the difference between these two metrics is closest to 0, and check if the same president was elected during both years.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Data Insights Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderator:
212 posts
