Ivy-GMAT's Integrated Reasoning Content - SOLUTIONS

8/11/2019 Ivy-GMAT's Integrated Reasoning Content - SOLUTIONS

1/40

Question 1

Statement 1: No. The only trick to this question is to recognize that its asking about outbreaks, notindividual illnesses. That means we can find the answer without looking beyond the first column. There

were 5 outbreaks in the first half of 2005 (any month between January and June would count as the firsthalf of the year) and 8 outbreaks in the second half. There were only 3 outbreaks in the first half of

2006, and and 8 outbreaks in the second half. That makes for 8 outbreaks in the first half of both years

(5 + 3 = 8) and 16 outbreaks in the second half of both years. This is exactly twice as many.

Statement 2: No.Sort by the illness column to quickly find the five highest totals. One of them caused 5

deaths, three of them caused 0 deaths, and one of them is unknown. Because of the unknown, we

cannot know if there were more deaths or not.

Statement 3:Yes. There were three total outbreaks in June of 2005 and 2006 (1 in 2005, and 2 in2006). The number of illnesses caused by these three outbreaks were 41, 115, and 13, making for 169total illnesses. The hospitalizations were 13, 7, and 8 in number, making for a total of 28. To find the

percent, we simply divide: 28/169 = approximately 16.5%, which is greater than 15%.

Question 2

Statement 1: $15,500. This problem asks us about information pertaining only to a specific subset of the

branches, those that saw an increasein costs during the period from 7/2/2011 to 12/31/2011. This would

be any branch with a positive Ycoordinate, so we will only be looking at the nine branches above the X-axis. From this group of 9, we need to find the one with the median change in cost during the periodbeginning on 1/1/2011 (the X-axis). With 9 branches, the median will be the 5th(the physical middle). If

we count over 5 from the left or 5 from the right, we see that the median branch appears to be the pointat approximately (-3.5, 19).

Now, we are asked to determine the net Variable Cost for this branch over the entire year. This is simply

the sum of the costs for each period (in thousands), so -$3,500 + $19,000 = $15,500.

Statement 2: 47%. To find branches with a net decrease in costs it will help to understand what is

represented by each quadrant.

Quadrant I: these branches had an increase over both periods (3 branches)

Quadrant II: these branches had a decrease during the first period but an increase during the second (6

branches)

Quadrant III: these branches had a decrease during both periods (1 branch)

Quadrant IV: these branches had an increase during the first period but a decrease during the second (5branches)


2/40

None of the branches that have an increase during both periods will have a net overall decrease, so we

can ignore the branches in Quadrant I (3 branches). All branches that have a decrease during bothperiods will have a net overall decrease, so we count all branched in Quadrant III (1 branch).

Now we must look at the more complicated situations an increase in one period but a decrease in theother. To get a net overall decrease, we need a larger dollar decrease than increase. For Quadrant II

(decrease in first period but increase in second), we need the X-coordinate (period 1) to be larger than

the Y-coordinate (period). This appears to be the case for 3 points:

(-7, 5.5), (-15.5, 5.5), and (-16, 0.5).

Finally, for Quadrant IV (decrease in the second period but increase in the first), we need the Y-

coordinate (period 2) to have larger magnitude than the X-coordinate (period 1). This appears to be thecase for 3 points (2.5, -4.5), (0.5, -7.5), and (11, -17). For all these points, the decrease outweighs the

increase.So in total, we have 1+3+3=7 branches out of the 15, a number slightly less than or 50%. Plug it into

the calculator to get 7/15 = 0.4667 = 47%.

As an alternative, you could find all the points satisfying the expression x+y


3/40

Question 4

Statement 1: No. To find the smallest ratio of "other" sources to total production, you should first sort by

the Other column. (Of course, this doesn't guarantee that the lowest ratio will be with the lowest Otheramount, but it gives you someplace to start; after all, if the total production were held constant, then

that sort would be perfect.) Look at the first row, which now contains 2001. Total production is 71.89that year, but Other is only 5.32. Punch this into the calculator to get 5.32/71.89 = approximately 0.074

= 7.4%, which is less than 8%.

Statement 2: No. Sort by Year. Now look down the Nuclear column. You can see the numbers grow,

even if irregularly, from 6's through 7's to 8's. This represents positive correlation. (If you were able tocalculate the actual correlation coefficient, you'd find out that it is 0.946, which is very close to the

maximum of 1.)

Statement 3: No. Keep the sort on Year, for easier lookup. Now look up the Nuclear numbers for 2000

and for 2007. You get 7.86 and 8.46, respectively. You might be able already to see that the growth isless than 10% (which would be 0.786 in absolute numbers), or you can use the calculator quickly to find

that the percent growth is approximately 7.6%, which is not more than 10%.

Question 5

In order to answer this logic problem, it might be best to start with a clear list of the constraints:

12 hours = total hours available

4 hours = total hours for walking

Minimum 4 art or architecture activities during the 2 days Maximum 1 art museum per day

Minimum of 1 beach activity during the trip Minimum of 1 shopping activity each day

Now we can start with the activities the family has already planned to see what has been accomplishedfrom the list and what has not.

On Day 1, the family has already planned 11 hours of activities, and only 1 hour of walking. Thereforethere is only 1 hour left to plan, and they could choose a walking activity if they would like. On Day 2, the

family has planned 9 hours of activities with 4 hours of walking. This means that there are 3 hours theycan use for activities but they cannot include walking.


4/40

Using these 2 constraints, we see that the only activities possible for each day are the following:

Day 1: Mirador De Colon, Montserrat, or La Pedrera

Day 2: Montserrat

Therefore, the family must choose the sightseeing trip to Montserrat on Day 2, leaving only Mirador DeColon and La Pedrera for Day 1.

If we now look at the family preferences, we see that Mom already has her shopping on each day (LasRamblas and Barri Gotico) and Little Brother has his beach activity on Day 2 (Nova Icria), but Big Sister

only has 3 of her 4 art or architecture activities. Both Mirador De Colon and La Pedrera fit this category,but Dad will not go to more than 1 art exhibit on a single day, and the family will already visit Park Gell

on Day 1. This means that they cannot visit La Pedrera as well. Therefore, the family will visit Mirador DeColon on Day 1.

Column 1: The correct answer is A.

Column 2: The correct answer is C.

Question 6

Statement 1: Otherwise. In the last sentence of the Residency Association statement, the presidentsays Such working conditions are dangerous for both patients and residents; some serious mistakeshave already been made and were caught only at the last minute by senior staff. The president, then,believes that the situation is dangerous and that there is at least the possibility of serious consequencesfrom serious mistakes made by residents.In the last sentence of the Hospital Board statement, the spokesperson says there is always anexperienced physician on hand to verify the diagnosis, take over the procedure, or otherwise correct anypotential errors made by residents. The spokesperson, then, believes that there is an oversight systemin place that will correct any potential errors in other words, there is not the danger of lasting harmdue to a residents mistake. (Note that the spokesperson doesnt claim that the licensed physician wontmake mistakes, but the question asks only about lasting harm caused by residents.)Statement 2: Both Agree.The Residency Association president explicitly states that residents have

averaged 17.5 hours during the past month, so the president does believe that residents are workingmore than 8 hours during a 24-hour shift. The Hospital Board spokesperson says that residents are notexpected to work 24 hours in a 24-hour shift, nor anywhere close to that but also that if residentschoose to participate in many routine activities that can ably be handled by the nursing or medical staff,that is the residents' choice. In other words, the spokesperson is acknowledging that it is possible for aresident to work long hours if he or she chooses to do so. The two parties, then, both agree thatresidents may work longer than 8 hours during a 24-hour shift.Statement 3: Otherwise.The Hospital Board spokesperson states clearly that until someone hasfinished the residency, he or she is not, and cannot reasonably be considered, a licensed physician. TheResidency Association president provides only indirect evidence that Residents are responsible for all ofthe licensed physician tasks, including intake, the ordering of tests and labs, diagnosis and treatment,including surgery (emphasis added). The spokesperson clearly states that no one can be considered a


5/40

licensed physician until the residency is complete. We might speculate either that the president disagreesor that there is not enough evidence to decide whether the president disagrees. Either way, the correctresponse is otherwise.

Question 7

Statement 1: Cannot Infer.The Residency Association indicates that the residents are assumed to work1/3 of the 24-hour shift, or 8 hours, but the president does not claim that residents should not work morethan that amount. They claim only that they work too much. We can infer that they think they shouldwork less than 17.5 hours, but we do not know what they think of an 8-hour cutoff. Likewise, theHospital Board never indicates a specific time beyond which residents should not be able to work.Statement 2: Both Accept.As part of their argument, the residents complain that their workingconditions are dangerous and that, as a result, serious mistakes have been made. We can infer, then,

that the residents believe the hospital is responsible for setting reasonable working hours in order tominimize or prevent errors made by residents (among other goals). The Hospital Board indicates thatwhen a resident is working, there is always an experienced physician on hand in order to correct anypotential errors. The board, then, also believes that the hospital is responsible for minimizing orpreventing errors made by medical residents.Statement 3: Cannot Infer.The residents state that they are taken advantage of terribly and cite thefact that they are undermined or treated poorly by senior doctors sometimes when patients arepresent as one piece of evidence. The residents, then, agree with this statement. We might surmise thatany ethical hospital board also would not want doctors to treat medical residents poorly when patientsare present (or at any time!), but the Hospital Boards statement never addresses this aspect of theresidents complaint. We do not know how the board feels about this issue.

Question 8

According to the first tab, the residents are assumed to work one-third of the hours in an assignedshift. If the shift is 24 hours long, then, a resident is assumed to work for 8 hours. In that case, thehourly wage would be $105 / 8 hours = $13.125. Rounded to the hundredths place, this is $13.13.The resident indicates that the average time worked over the past month was actually 17.5 hours. Thehourly wage in this case would be $105 / 17.5 hours = $6.00.The difference between the two wages is $13.13 - $6.00 = $7.13.The correct answer is E.

Question 9

To solve this fractions problem, we must find the ratio of the number of total boxed packed by the first-shift to the total number of boxes packed by both shifts together. From the information given, we knowthat there were 2/3 as many first-shift workers as second-shift workers and, inverting the secondfraction, we know that each first-shift worker packed 3/4 as many boxes as each individual second-shiftworker. From here, multiplying the ratio of workers by the ratio of work per individual gives the fractionof total first-shift boxes relative to the second shift. This is done as (2/3) (3/4) = 6/12 = 1/2. Thus, thefirst shift packs half as many boxes as the second shift. We can compute the first-shift boxes relative tothe total by:(first-shift fraction) / (first-shift fraction + second-shift fraction) = 1 / (1+2) = 1/3.Thus the first shift does 1/3 of the total work. We must look for two numbers in the table that are relatedby a factor of 3. The only two numbers are 12 and 36, meaning that the first shift packed 12 boxes, andthe total number of boxes packed by both shifts was 3 12 = 36.


6/40

Alternatively, one could use numbers to establish the relationship between the number of total boxespacked by the first shift and the number of total boxes packed by the two shifts together. We use ourfractional ratios to choose smart numbers and assign 2 workers to the first shift, 3 workers to the second

shift, 3 boxes per individual on the first shift, and 4 boxes per individual on the second shift. This gives:Total First-shift Boxes = (2 workers) (3 boxes per worker) = 6 boxesTotal Second-shift Boxes = (3 workers) (4 boxes per worker) = 12 boxesTotal Boxes Overall = 12 boxes + 6 boxes = 18 boxes.Again, from this we can derive that the ratio of first-shift boxes to the total boxes packed is 6/18 = 1/3.Column 1: The correct answer is C.Column 2: The correct answer is E.

Question 10Statement 1: 60% and 65%. A person who was 30 in 1999 was 39 in 2008. Therefore, to answer thisquestion, we need to multiply the probability that a person who was 30 in 1999 had health insurance bythe probability that a person who was 39 in 2008 had health insurance. (The assumption of

independence allows us to multiply these probabilities; in reality, these conditions are almostcertainly notindependent.)79% of people aged 25-34 had health insurance in 1999, so a person who was 30 in 1999 had a 79%chance of having health insurance. Similarly, a person who was 39 in 2008 had an 80% chance of havinghealth insurance.The probability we want is 79% 80%.0.79 0.80 = 0.632 = 63.2%, between 60% and 65%.Statement 2: 1,200,000 less. The easiest way to answer this question is to calculate the number of 35-44 year olds who had health insurance in 1999 and 2008. The total US population is given in theinformation under the graph. The population in 1999 was 276,804,000; the population in 2008 was301,483,000.If 35-44 year olds were 20% of the population in 1999, and 85% of 35-44 year olds had health

insurance, then the total number of 35-44 year olds who had health insurance in 1999 was:276,804,000 0.85 0.20 = 47,056,680 47 millionSimilarly, 80% of 35-44 year olds had health insurance in 2008, and 35-44 year olds represented 20% ofthe population:301,483,000 0.80 0.20 = 48.237,280 48.2 millionThe question said approximately, so we dont have to find the exact difference. 48.2 47 = 1.2. Weretalking about millionsof people, so there were approximately 1,200,000 fewer 35-44 year olds insured in1999 than in 2008.

Question 11

The conclusion of the argument is that the Dante 5000 is more reliable than the companys other stone-cutting machines and the premise is that there have been fewer customer complaints about the Dante500 than about the companys other industrial stone-cutting machines over the last six months.This argument assumes a number of things! Do breakdowns in unreliable machines typically occur withinthe first six months? Have enough Dante 5000s been sold to make a reasonable comparison with theother stone-cutting machines?Option A: The Dante 5000 is the most expensive stone-cutting machine produced by the company.The argument is not about cost. This is out of scope.Option B: There are other stone-cutting machines that are considered more reliable than the Dante 5000.The argument is only about this companys stone-cutting machines. Other machines may be from othercompanies, so this is out of scope.


7/40

Option C: The Dante 5000 performed very well in initial testing.The argument is reliability measured in terms of breakdowns, not about performance. This is out ofscope.

Option D:Stone-cutting machines usually break down very quickly under industrial use if they are notreliable.- StrengthensThis option directly strengthens the conclusion that the Dante 5000 is reliable than the companys othermachines because it makes it more likely that six months would be enough time to see breakdowns if themachine were unreliable. Note that this statement does not plug all of the holes in the argument! It justmakes this weak argument slightly stronger.Option E:Very few customers have purchased a Dante 5000.- WeakensThis option directly weakens the conclusion by providing a good alternative interpretation of the lownumber of customer complaints. If very few customers have bought the machine, then a small number ofcomplaints could actually represent a highrate (percent) of complaints. This choice points up the classicdifference between absolute numbers and percents.Option F:The Dante 5000 employs a new technology that is more precise than that used by our previousstone-cutting machines.

The argument is concerned with reliability measured in terms of breakdowns, not about precision. Thischoice is out of scope.Column 1: The correct answer is D.Column 2: The correct answer is E.

Question 12

Remember that R T = D. We are given that the distance = 675, but only that the time for train Ais t and that the time for train B is t 3. So we know that RA t= 675 and RB (t 3) = 675.So RA = 675/t and RB = 675/(t 3), but we dont have enough information to solve for either rate,because there are only two equations and three unknowns.What we do know though, is that the rate, or speed, of train A must be less than the speed of train B andthat both rates must be in the chart.So we can test the smaller numbers as potential speeds of A. Solve for potential ts and (t 3)s and thentest the (t 3)s until we find one that yields a speed that is in the chart. Use the calculator, of course, tomove quickly through these computations.

Potential value for

As speed in mphImplied value of t

Implied

value of t 3Implied value of Bs

speed in mph

45.75t= 675/45.75 =

14.754

t 3 = 11.754= 675/11.754 = 57.427

not on list

50 t= 675/50 = 13.5 t 3 = 10.5= 675/10.5 = 64.286not on list

56.25 t = 675/56.25 = 12 t 3 = 9= 675/9 = 75yes on list! Stop!

63

67.5

75

Since there can be only one set of answers, we can stop here.


8/40

Column 1: The correct answer is C.Column 2: The correct answer is F.

Question 13

The passage as a whole strongly suggests that few cartels last more than 4 or 5 years because of theeconomic incentive that members have to cheat.Option A - No cartel will last more than 100 years.This is much too strong of a statement to be logically inferred from very few known cartels have lastedfor more than 4 or 5 years. It could be that one or more known (or unknown) cartels has indeed lasted100 years, even though only 4 to 5 years is typical.Option B - As long as the members do not cheat, a cartel cannot be broken.This is too strong of a statement to be inferred from The main issue is that the members of a cartel all

have an incentive to cheat and cut prices just a little in order to maximize their individual profits at theexpense of profits of the cartel as a whole. There could be other issues. Perhaps new suppliers that arenot part of the market enter the cartel, or perhaps the cartels product is made technologically irrelevant.Option C - An effective system for preventing members from cheating would not increase thelikelihood that a cartel would survive in the long-term. Correct FALSEThe passage says that the main issue is that the members of the cartel have an incentive to cheat, so aneffective system for preventing cheating WOULD likely increase the likelihood that a cartel would survivein the long run.Option D - Private cartels are not legal in most countries.The passage does not discuss legality. Although this statement is likely true, it is not something that canbe inferred from the passage.Option E Cartels are inherently unstable and likely to fail in the long run. Correct TRUEThis can be directly inferred from very few known cartels have lasted for more than 4 or 5 years andThe main issue is that the members of a cartel all have an incentive to cheat and cut prices just a littlein order to maximize their individual profits at the expense of profits of the cartel as a whole. Theeconomic incentive to cheat is inherent in the nature of a cartel and makes it inherently unstable.Option F It is extremely difficult for competing firms to agree to fix prices, marketing, and

production in the formation of a cartel.This choice is tempting, but the passage does not discuss the difficulty of forming a cartel agreement.Although this statement is likely true in the real world, it is too extreme to infer language such as"extremely difficult" from the passage.Column 1: The correct answer is E.Column 2: The correct answer is C. It is extremely difficult for competing firms to agree to fix prices,marketing, and production in the formation of a cartel.

Question 14

The key to answering this question is finding the relationship between Xand Y. First, create an equationthat matches the information provided.

Revenue from widget sales will equal the number of widgets sold times the price per widget. Let wbe theoriginal number of widgets sold and letpbe the original price per widget. X% is the same as X/100;likewise, Y% is Y/100.


9/40

If the revenues are equal for the two months, then:

wp= (Y/100) (w) (X/100) (p)

Notice that both sides of the equation contain wandp. Cancel out wandp(which are non-zero, by thelogic of the real world, so youre allowed to divide them away).

wp= (Y/100) (w) (X/100) (p)1 = (Y/100) (X/100)

You can go further (to prove that XY= 10,000), but lets stay in percent land. What we have so far isthat (Y/100) and (X/100) multiply together to 1. That is, they arereciprocalsof each other.So lets save time. Divide every answer choice by 100, to convert it to the decimal equivalent of apercent. We get0.500.625

0.751.51.61.8Now, to determine which pairs multiply together to 1, notice that youll need to pick one number smallerthan 1 and the other number larger than 1. Which variable gets which? Since the factory raised theprice to X%, we know that X% must be bigger than 100%, so Xmust be the one bigger than 1.Next, to check reciprocals quickly, see whether theres a quick fraction equivalent of each of thesedecimals. Fortunately, there is!0.50 = 0.625 = 5/80.75 =

1.50 = 3/21.60 = 8/51.80 = 9/5Now its easy to spot the reciprocals. Know your eighths! (1/8 = 0.125, etc.)5/8 8/5 = 1, so the correct percents are 62.5% and 160%. Again, Xmust be 160 and Y must be 62.5.Column 1: The correct answer is E.Column 2: The correct answer is B.

Question 15

Statement 1: Brazil.In order to solve this problem, you need to know that the definition of the medianis the middle number in a set.Since there are 15 countries in the chart, the one with the 8 th largest national debt has the mediannational debt. To see this quickly, hold your finger or a piece of paper on the right edge of the chart,start moving it to the left, and count off countries as the piece of paper touches their bars until you getto the eighth longest bar, which is Brazils.Statement 2: between 50% and 70%. Use the lines on the graph to help with counting countries thatfall into the ranges or bins given in the answer choices. Notice that the percent ranges are themidpoints between the lines shown.Since there are only two countries, Italy and Japan, with national debt as a percentage of GDP greaterthan 70%, we can quickly eliminate answers D and E. Five countries (United States, India, Germany,France, and Canada) have percentages between 50% and 70%. The United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil, and


10/40

possibly South Korea have values between 30% and 50%, for a total of 3 or possibly 4 countries in thatrange, but even 4 is less than the 5 countries between 50% and 70%. Australia, China, Mexico, andprobably South Korea have percentages between 10% and 30%, for a total of 4 countries. Russia is the

only country below 10%. So the answer must be between 50% and 70%.

Question 16

Statement 1: No. First, compute the "turns" (as defined in the statement) of AV materials for 2004 (thedate in the statement) by dividing "AV materials lent out to public" by "AV materials in collection" in the2004 row. 6,683 / 2,456 = 2.72.Now the question is this: is there any year that has a smaller number? Sort by the numerator of the ratioyou're examining, "Lent out to public AV materials," and look at the top row. The year in the top row is2005, and the "Lent out to public AV materials" number is 6,059 (the smallest of any year).Does that generate a smaller ratio? Try it: 6,059 / 2,383 = 2.54, which is smaller than the 2004 ratio.

You could tell in advance, if you looked closely, because 6,059 represents a bigger % decline from 6,683(almost 10%) than 2,383 does from 2,456 (about 3%).So the AV turns in 2004 are notthe lowest among years listed.Statement 2: No. First, re-sort by "Year" if necessary, so that your table is in chronological order.Measure the percent decline in "In collection Volumes": (37,464 - 42,760) / 42,760 -12%, or a 12%decline. Did any other characteristic listed in the table experience a greater percent decline? Scanning,we should see the first column ("Libraries Number") pop out at us: it fell from 508 to 351, a decline weshould be able to estimate as 30% without using the calculator by rounding to 500 and 350 (thecalculator puts the decline as approximately 31%).So the listed characteristic that experienced the greatest percent decline was notvolumes in collection.Statement 3: No. For each year in question (2002 and 2003), compute the ratio of "In collection Books"to "Users Registered."

2002: 36,671 / 4,290 8.552003: 35,371 / 4,206 8.41Notice that both raw numbers fell from 2002 to 2003 (books by about 3.5%, and users by about 2.0%),and the ratio only fell very slightly. So we should go ahead and use the calculator here, rather than riskerror.The number of books in the collections per registered user did notrise from 2002 to 2003.

Question 17

You are asked to figure out and apply these linguistic constraints to possible words. Lets start with theclassification of vowels as brutish (a, o, and u) and as fragile (eand i).Kurtish has stricter rules about the separation of these vowelsonly one kind can appear within anyword. Since this is a simple constraint, lets apply it first. Which words fail this constraint?calzral only a, brutish passesfjp NO vowels, but thats okay (see note below) passesaphueitse both brutish (a and u) and fragile (eand i) fails, cant be Kurtishbrushmen both brutish (u) and fragile (e) fails, cant be Kurtish(dont be fooled by the fact that brushmensounds okay in English, though its not an English word)qudxatroua only brutish (a, o, and u) passeshzziigri only fragile (i) passes


11/40

So we know that our two answers must be in the middle, aphueitseand brushmen. One of these couldbe Laeglish; the other cannot. Now we have to apply the second constraint, the one about Laeglish:every consonant or group of consonants can only directly touch vowels of one type or the other. Lets

compare:aPHueiTSe the PHtouches aand u, which are both brutish the TStouches iand e, which are both fragileThis passes the Laeglish test. Double-check the other word:BRuSHMeN the BRonly touches u, but the SHMtouches u(brutish) and e(fragile). That breaks the Laeglish rule.So aphueitsecould be Laeglish but not Kurtish; brushmencould not be either.Column 1: The correct answer is C.Column 2: The correct answer is D.

Note that fjpdoes not have any vowels as defined above, but no constraint demands that a word ineither language contain vowels! In fact, a nod is given to the possibility of zero vowels within a word with

the language according to the vowels it [a word] contains, if any (emphasis added). Dont apply outsideknowledge inappropriately here (you expect words to have vowels).

Question 18

Statement 1: Canada. This problem asks us to find the country with the highest standard deviationamong all years. Standard deviation is a measure of the overall distance of the set from the mean value,or the spread of the set. Judging by eye from the plot, we see that Switzerland and the Netherlands aremuch closer to their mean values across all years than Sweden and the Canada, so we eliminateSwitzerland and the Netherlands. Notice that Sweden and Canada start out at the same value of zero and

then both trend upwards in the same way over the years. However, Canada is always higher thanSweden, meaning the overall spread of the set of values for Canada is larger.Since they start at the same value and Canada always trends higher, the Canadian set is much morespread out, and therefore Canada has the larger standard deviation.Statement 2: 1,500. To solve this problem, we find the ratio of the two countries and then multiply by100 to achieve a percent. This is given by:Percent = [(Sweden in 2000) / (Netherlands in 2000)] 100Finding the year 2000 along our x-axis, we use our eye to judge the approximate values of production forthe Netherlands and Sweden in 2000. The Netherlands produced approximately 1 million toe of nuclearenergy in 2000 and Sweden produced approximately 15 million toe of total nuclear energy in the sameyear. Plugging these values into the formula above:Percent = (15 million / 1 million) 100 = 15 100 = 1,500.

Question 19

According to the table on the Funding Sources tab, three teams have a Percent Funded figure exceeding100%: Gymnastics, Soccer, and Track and Field. For each of these, we can calculate the amount of extramoney generated by the respective team. The first tab indicates that there are four funding sources andthat individual endorsements are not part of the overall team calculations, leaving three funding sources:TV rights, team sponsors, and government funding. These three sources are all detailed in the secondtab. (Note that none of the three will receive government funding because all three already exceed 100%of their own expenses.)The gymnastics team has a total of 1,100 + 890 = 1,990 in funding and this represents 115% of theteams monetary needs, or 1,990 = 1.15x. The actual amount needed, then, is 1,990 / 1.15 = 1,730, and


12/40

the surplus is 1,990 1,730 = 260. (Note that we can round our calculations because the problem asksfor the approximate level of surplus funding.)The Soccer team has a total of 1,800 + 1,300 = 3,100 in funding and this represents 126% of the teams

monetary needs. The actual amount needed, then, is 3,100 / 1.26 = 2,460, and the surplus is 3,100 2,460 = 640.The Track and Field team has 1,000 + 345 = 1,345 in funding and this represents 103% of the teamsmonetary needs. The actual amount needed, then, is 1,345 / 1.03 = 1,306, and the surplus is 1,345 1,306 = 39.The total surplus is 260 + 640 + 39 = 939, or approximately 940.The correct answer is A.

Question 20

Statement 1: No. The second paragraph of the Article tab indicates that an individual team is

considered underfunded if its funding (not including government sources) covers less than 95% of theteams expected expenses. There are 9 teams shown in the Funding Sources tab. Of these, only 4 arefunded at less than 95% of expected expenses (basketball, boxing, equestrian, and volleyball).Statement 2:Yes.The Article tab tells us that surplus funding will be returned to the committee andreallocated among the teams who have not reached 100% funding. The government is willing to provideup to 5% of expenses to those teams who fall short, but it will not have to provide the full amount in allcases because there is a surplus among three teams that will be able to be distributed among the shortteams. Therefore, the government will be paying some reduced amount. (In fact, the surplus of the threeteams is larger than the shortfall of the other 6 teams, so the government will not be responsible for anyfunding at all.)Statement 3: No.It is true that the absolute amount of government funding is higher for the equestrianteam (43) than for the basketball team (40). But the question asks about the funding as a percentage of

total funds needed for that team. The passage tells us that the government will pay up to a maximum of5% for any team that cannot meet its funding needs but the government will only pay the full 5% if theteams own funding is below 95% of its needed funding. Both the basketball and equestrian teams arebelow 95% of full funding, so both teams qualify for the maximum 5% in government funding.

Question 21

To start, we need to calculate how much funding each team needs. If TV rights will increase by 15% foreach sport, we need to recalculate the amount of funding from TV rights, and determine the new amountby which the team falls short of the goal (if any). Then we need to determine whether that is more or

less than 5% of needed funding.Statement 1:Yes.Prior to the change, the basketball team had secured 400 + 250 = 650 in fundingfrom TV rights and team sponsors, and this represented 82% of the teams needed funding. Therefore,the team needed a total of 650 / (82/100) = 793 in funding.Now, the team will earn 400 1.15 = 460 in TV rights, or an increase of 60, so the team will have a totalof 650 + 60 = 710 in funding. Calculate the percentage that this represents of total funding: 710 / 793 =90%. The team is still more than 5% short, so it still qualifies for the maximum 5% government funding.Statement 2: No.Prior to the change, the boxing team had secured 130 + 185 = 315 in funding from TVrights and team sponsors, and this represented 92% of the teams needed funding. Therefore, the teamneeded a total of 315 / (92/100) = 342 in funding.Now, the team will earn 130 1.15 = 149.5 in TV rights, or an increase of 19.5, so the team will have atotal of 315 + 19.5 = 334.5 in funding. Calculate the percentage that this represents of total funding:


13/40

334.5 / 342 = 98%. The team is less than 5% short, so it no longer qualifies for the maximum 5%government funding.Statement 3:Yes.Prior to the change, the volleyball team had secured 100 + 130 = 230 in funding from

TV rights and team sponsors, and this represented 86% of the teams needed funding. Therefore, theteam needed a total of 230 / (86/100) = 267 in funding.Now, the team will earn 100 1.15 = 115 in TV rights, or an increase of 15, so the team will have a totalof 230 + 15 = 245 in funding. Calculate the percentage that this represents of total funding: 245 / 267 =92%. The team is still more than 5% short, so it still qualifies for the maximum 5% government funding.

Question 22

Statement 1: 1775. The graph gives you enough information to compute the number of characters ineach document. Examine the labels of the columns:

1.

Characters per word = Characters Word2. Words per sentence = Words Sentence3. Sentences per paragraph = Sentences Paragraph4. Paragraphs

If you multiply (1) and (2) together, the Words cancel, and you're left with "Characters per sentence."Keep multiplying all the way across, and you cancel out all the denominators! You're left with Characters.Now, one good and safe way forward is simply to estimate the numbers for each document (A throughD), and multiply across, using the calculator. That might take a little time, but it's secure and not tootime-consuming. Here's a set of sample estimations and results:

(A) 5.22 45 1.5 26 9,161(B) 5.17 40 4.4 15 13,648(C) 5.06 38 1.1 32 6,768(D)5.04 150 1 2 1,500

So document B has the most characters. Checking against the text note, you can find that document Bwas published in 1775.Even if you estimate the numbers slightly differently, you'll still come out with document B as the clearwinner.You can avoid a little computation by not computing out D's numbers, but if you notice, A and B areproportionally relatively close. A slight shift in a few points for each document, relatively unnoticeable,could cause the total characters of A to exceed those of B. The safe move is to estimate each numberand multiply out.Statement 2: the ratio of words to sentences."The ratio of characters to words" is another name for the "Characters per word" metric in the firstcolumn. Likewise, the other ratios in the answer choices are simply different names for the respectivecolumns. So the question is this: Column 1 is most likely to be negatively correlated with which other

column?Helpfully, column 1 is in ABCD order. What order are the other columns in?2. DABC3. BACD4. CABDSo they all preserve something of the original order, but notice that column 2 has the most drastic move(D moves to the very front). Moreover, in column 2 the letters besides D are all bunched up together,making their relative order less important; meanwhile, D has leapt out to a much greater number (150)than any of the others (which are somewhere between 35 and 45). This makes the effect of D's movemuch greater. (Yes, column 3 experiences something akin to this effect, but it's B that's out in front, andsince B was already toward the beginning, it's less of a reversal.)


14/40

So the second column, with Words per sentence, that is most likely to be negatively correlated with thefirst column (Characters per word). You aren't responsible for computing the actual correlation coefficientuntil you get to b-school, but such computations bear out this result (the actual correlation coefficients

between the first column and the others are -0.58, 0.43, and 0.33, respectively).

Question 23

Statement 1: No. Sort by column 1996 to find the range (maximum minimum) for that year. Themaximum value is 137.407 and the minimum value is 120.99, so, using the calculator, the range is137.407 120.99 = 16.417. For the range to be greater than 15% of any single nation in 2000, therange must be greater than 15% of the maximum blood pressure posted in 2000. Sort by column 2000to find the maximum value; 136.785. Use the calculator to compute 15% of this value; (0.15) (136.785)= 20.51775. Because the range in 1996 is less than 15% of the maximum value in 2000, (16.417

Documents

Ivy-GMAT's Integrated Reasoning Content - SOLUTIONS