Last visit was: 12 Jul 2024, 16:58 It is currently 12 Jul 2024, 16:58

Close

GRE Prep 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GRE score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Apr 2020
Status:Founder & Quant Trainer
Affiliations: Prepster Education
Posts: 1546
Own Kudos [?]: 3017 [15]
Given Kudos: 172
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Most Helpful Community Reply
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Aug 2021
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [5]
Given Kudos: 7
Send PM
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Apr 2020
Status:Founder & Quant Trainer
Affiliations: Prepster Education
Posts: 1546
Own Kudos [?]: 3017 [3]
Given Kudos: 172
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
General Discussion
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [1]
Given Kudos: 22
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink]
1
KarunMendiratta wrote:
Explanation:

Refer to the table;
Let the total number of employees be 100
Vulnerable employees be M
So, Not vulnerable = (100 - M)

Now,
We are given that 0.8M = 16% of T
i.e. M (vulnerable employees) = 20 and,
100 - M (Not vulnerable employees) = 80

Therefore, number of employees who are vulnerable and are less than 17 years old = 0.2(20) = 4
Complete rest of the table.

Col. A: \(\frac{24}{40} = 60\)%
Col. B: \(24\)%

Hence, option A



Could you explain as to how did you understand that we have to do 24 (not vulnerable and 17 or more)/40(total 17 or more) and not 24/100? Because I fell for the language trap and did 24 / 100 (total number). :/
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Jun 2024
Posts: 25
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [1]
Given Kudos: 19
GPA: 3.64
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink]
1
dirroo wrote:
KarunMendiratta wrote:
Explanation:

Refer to the table;
Let the total number of employees be 100
Vulnerable employees be M
So, Not vulnerable = (100 - M)

Now,
We are given that 0.8M = 16% of T
i.e. M (vulnerable employees) = 20 and,
100 - M (Not vulnerable employees) = 80

Therefore, number of employees who are vulnerable and are less than 17 years old = 0.2(20) = 4
Complete rest of the table.

Col. A: \(\frac{24}{40} = 60\)%
Col. B: \(24\)%

Hence, option A



Could you explain as to how did you understand that we have to do 24 (not vulnerable and 17 or more)/40(total 17 or more) and not 24/100? Because I fell for the language trap and did 24 / 100 (total number). :/


same here? Can anyone please explain
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 29080
Own Kudos [?]: 34063 [0]
Given Kudos: 25479
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink]
Expert Reply
The question is asking you

Percent employees, that are 17 years old or more, and are not vulnerable to Mycobacterial infection


translation


employees who are >17 years old or equal to 17 years old and are NOT affected

in the table the intersection between these two criteria is 24

Attachment:
screenshot.2324.jpg
screenshot.2324.jpg [ 42.45 KiB | Viewed 141 times ]


The number is 24 OVER the total which is forty (40)

The result \(\frac{20}{40} \times 100 = 60\)

A is the answer
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 29080
Own Kudos [?]: 34063 [0]
Given Kudos: 25479
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 29080
Own Kudos [?]: 34063 [0]
Given Kudos: 25479
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Jun 2024
Posts: 25
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [1]
Given Kudos: 19
GPA: 3.64
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink]
1
Carcass wrote:
The question is asking you

Percent employees, that are 17 years old or more, and are not vulnerable to Mycobacterial infection


translation


employees who are >17 years old or equal to 17 years old and are NOT affected

in the table the intersection between these two criteria is 24

Attachment:
screenshot.2324.jpg


The number is 24 OVER the total which is forty (40)

The result \(\frac{20}{40} \times 100 = 60\)

A is the answer


Understood. thank you so much :)
Prep Club for GRE Bot
[#permalink]
Moderators:
GRE Instructor
46 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
17 posts
Moderator
1090 posts
GRE Instructor
218 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne