Here are the answers to the questions, developed by STN Academy, a Korean organization which helps students prepare for the GMAT, that I posted last Thursday:

1. [Sentence Correction] Correct the underlined part: Plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than are fungi, in the form of carbon dioxide, and converting it to energy-rich sugars.

i. Plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than are fungi

ii. Plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than fungi

iii. Plants are more efficient than fungi at acquiring carbon

iv. Plants, more efficient than fungi at acquiring carbon

v. Plants acquire carbon more efficiently than fungi

*In A and B, ‘at acquiring carbon’ is misplaced because the expression should be placed behind the subordinate conjunction ‘than’ to be parallel with ‘converting it to energy-rich sugars’. And if the expression of D is put in the line, the whole expression becomes a fragment, not a complete sentence. In E, there is no expression that can be parallel with ‘converting it to energy-rich sugars’. So, the answer is C. ***[So, what is a subordinate conjunction?]**

2. [Critical Reasoning] The price the government pays for standard weapons purchased from military contractors is determined by a pricing method called “historical costing.” Historical costing allows contractors to protect their profits by adding a percentage increase, based on the current rate of inflation, to the previous year’s contractual price.

Which of the following statements, if true, is the best basis for a criticism of historical costing as an economically sound pricing method for military contracts?

i. The government might continue to pay for past inefficient use of funds.

ii. The rate of inflation has varied considerably over the past twenty years.

iii. The contractual price will be greatly affected by the cost of materials used for the products.

iv. Many taxpayers question the amount of money the government spends on military contracts.

v. The pricing method based on historical costing might not encourage the development of innovative weapons.

*The statement assumes that the government is now paying money for standard weapons reasonably. Otherwise, historical costing can’t be justified just because the contractors protect their profits by adding a percentage increase, based on the current rate of inflation, to the previous year’s contractual price. So, if an answer choice raises the possibility that the government may pay for standard weapons inappropriately, it is the best answer choice to criticize historical costing as an economically sound pricing method for military contracts. It is the answer choice of A.** ***[Although I got this one, I have no idea what the logic says.]*** *

3. [Data Sufficiency] Directions: In this problem, a question is followed by two statements containing certain data. You are to determine whether the data provided by the statements are sufficient to answer the question. Choose the correct answer based upon the statement’s data and your knowledge of mathematics.

(y+3)(y-1)-(y-2)(y-1)=r(y-1), what is the value of y?

(1) r^2=25

(2) r=5

i. Statement 1 alone is sufficient, but statement 2 alone is not sufficient to answer the question.

ii. Statement 2 alone is sufficient, but statement 1 alone is not sufficient to answer the question.

iii. Both statements taken together are sufficient to answer the question, but neither statement alone is sufficient.

iv. Each statement alone is sufficient.

v. Statements 1 and 2 together are not sufficient, and additional data is needed to answer the question.

*(y+3-y+2)(y-1)=r(y-1), 5(y-1)=r(y-1), (5-r)(y-1)=0, If 2) => 1) and 2) r=5, (5-5)(y-1)=0, 0(y-1)=0, y are all numbers, NOT sufficient, therefore the best answer is E.** ***[Huh? And what is ^?]*** *** **

4. [Problem Solving] 1<=n<=60, n is an integer. What is the probability that n(n+1)(n+2) is divisible by 6?

i. 1/2

ii. 2/3

iii. 3/4

iv. 4/5

v. 1

*Because the product of 3 consecutive integers is a multiple of 6, the probability is 60/60=1; therefore the best answer is E.*** ****[Hmmm. I did not know that about the product of 3 consecutive numbers.]**

How did you do? I got 2 correct, and although I have a couple of graduate degrees, you can tell by my comments in bold print that I’ve forgotten many things. Or maybe my brain is full…

Feel free to leave a comment, and please come back often – I write and post every day! And if you like what I have to say and how I say it, you’ll probably enjoy my novels as well. They’re listed below, and you can read more about them on my improved website, designed and built by my son Don, http://www.randolphmase.com. On my site, you’ll also find excerpts of my books that you can read – please check it out!** **** **

And to view updated blogs in real-time, go to http://plugalink.com or http://kadency.com – they’re both great sites!

RandolphMase, Fiction Writer

http://twitter.com/randolphmase

My Novels:

*Death on Broadway*

*Death Beneath the Streets*

*Death in Central Park*

*Death in The Cloisters *(under construction)

*Nathan Hale*

## Leave a Reply