It is currently Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:29 pm

 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

 Page 1 of 1 [ 2 posts ]
 Print view Previous topic | Next topic
Author Message
 Post subject: GMAT Integrated Reasoning: Table AnalysisPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:09 am

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 3:15 am
Posts: 424

The Democratic Part is trying to analyze and evaluate the results of the various elections. For each of the following statements select “Would Explain” if it would, if true, explain some of the information in the table. Otherwise select “Would Not Explain.

A. There were three major candidates running in the Governor’s race, while statewide races featured only Democratic and Republican candidates.

B. The Democratic candidate for President was a business executive.

C. There was no Republican candidate for the mayoral race in Washington.
----------
Hi there. Could someone please outline this question. Literally don't get
any of it. Thanks a lot.

Top

 Post subject: Re: GMAT Integrated Reasoning: Table AnalysisPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:10 am

Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:23 am
Posts: 498
We have the table with percentages (the results of democratic candidates in various cities and on different levels). The task is to determine whether the given statements can tell us why the numbers are such and not the other.

For example, if statement A is a fact, it explains why the percentages in "Governor" column are lower than percentages in Presidential and US Congress columns. If there are two major candidates in an election, most of the votes will split between them, let's say 60% and 35%, or 55% and 42%, etc. However, if there are three major candidates, most of the votes will split between the three, for example 30%, 30%, 35%. Thus even the winner in a three-split can easily have lower percentage than a looser in a two-split.
We see that in these elections people like democratic party, so the lower numbers in the Governor column can be reasonably explained by statement A.

Note, that there can be other reasonable explanations. For example voters might simply not like the governor candidate. However we do not require statement A to be the only possible explanation.

Statement B is simply irrelevant on its own.

Statement C, on its own, works against the numbers in the table. It would explain, if the numbers were different, but not the given percentages.

Top

 Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending
 Page 1 of 1 [ 2 posts ]

 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

#### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
 Jump to:  Select a forum ------------------ GMAT    GMAT: Quantitative Section (Math)    GMAT: Verbal Section    GMAT: Integrated Reasoning    GMAT: General Questions GRE    GRE: Quantitative Reasoning (Math)    GRE: Verbal Reasoning    GRE: General Questions General questions    Other questions