Last visit was: 31 Dec 2024, 08:30 It is currently 31 Dec 2024, 08:30
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New comers' posts
New posts
Unanswered

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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
PREVIOUS TOPIC
NEXT TOPIC

In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are

Tags :
Find Similar Topics  About  Add a Tag

Show Tags
Hide Tags

User avatar
D
KarunMendiratta
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Apr 2020
Status:Founder & Quant Trainer
Affiliations: Prepster Education
Posts: 1546
Own Kudos [?]: 3277 [18]
Given Kudos: 172
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink] New post   10 Aug 2021, 05:36
5
13
Bookmarks
00:00

Question Stats:

40% (02:52) correct 60% (03:06) wrong based on 70 sessions

Hide Show timer Statistics

In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are vulnerable to Mycobacterial infection are less than 17 years of age and 30% of the employees who are not vulnerable to Mycobacterial infection are more than or equal to 17 years of age. If 16% of total employees are more than or equal to 17 years of age and are vulnerable to Mycobacterial infection.

Quantity A
Quantity B
Percent employees, that are 17 years old or more, and are not vulnerable to Mycobacterial infection
24%


A. Quantity A is greater
B. Quantity B is greater
C. The two quantities are equal
D. The relationship cannot be determined from the information given
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
A
Most Helpful Community Reply
avatar
B
hadiabbkh
Intern
Intern
Joined: 07 Aug 2021
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [5]
Given Kudos: 7
Send PM
In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink] New post   11 Aug 2021, 08:28
5
Answer's in the question. '30% of employees who are not vulnerable to the infection are more than or equal to 17 years of age.'

30%>24%. Therefore, A.

That's the only way I could interpret this.
Question's a bit incomprehensible. If option A, by 'percent employees', refers to the percentage from the total number of employees, then the answer is C.
User avatar
D
KarunMendiratta
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Apr 2020
Status:Founder & Quant Trainer
Affiliations: Prepster Education
Posts: 1546
Own Kudos [?]: 3277 [3]
Given Kudos: 172
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink] New post   11 Aug 2021, 11:38
2
1
Bookmarks
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
Attachments

In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees.png
In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees.png [ 16.01 KiB | Viewed 5005 times ]

General Discussion
avatar
dirroo
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] New post   05 Dec 2021, 03:39
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). :/
avatar
B
teshu325
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Jun 2024
Posts: 29
Own Kudos [?]: 19 [1]
Given Kudos: 19
GPA: 3.64
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink] New post   28 Jun 2024, 02:53
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
User avatar
D
Carcass
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 30559
Own Kudos [?]: 36907 [0]
Given Kudos: 26113
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink] New post   28 Jun 2024, 03:06
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 991 times ]


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

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

A is the answer
User avatar
D
Carcass
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 30559
Own Kudos [?]: 36907 [0]
Given Kudos: 26113
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink] New post   28 Jun 2024, 03:12
Expert Reply
Please see our

GRE Quant - Overlapping Set Theory

User avatar
D
Carcass
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 30559
Own Kudos [?]: 36907 [0]
Given Kudos: 26113
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink] New post   28 Jun 2024, 03:15
Expert Reply
avatar
B
teshu325
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Jun 2024
Posts: 29
Own Kudos [?]: 19 [1]
Given Kudos: 19
GPA: 3.64
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink] New post   28 Jun 2024, 04:51
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 :)
avatar
B
PrepAT
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Jul 2024
Posts: 9
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 28
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink] New post   23 Jul 2024, 05:23
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


Why did you calculate percent employees over 40 and not 100?
Because the wording is ambiguous. Percent employees of total employees or percent employees of employees who are 17 or more?
User avatar
D
Carcass
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 30559
Own Kudos [?]: 36907 [0]
Given Kudos: 26113
Send PM
In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink] New post   23 Jul 2024, 08:03
Expert Reply
Please see my explanation above.

We did extensively

https://gre.myprepclub.com/forum/in-an- ... ml#p117420

I hope this helps

Image

The # of employee is 24 over the total 40 NOT 100

Please refer to the overlapping sets theory
User avatar
S
adewale223
GRE Instructor
Joined: 06 Nov 2023
Posts: 88
Own Kudos [?]: 93 [0]
Given Kudos: 21
Send PM
In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink] New post   25 Jul 2024, 23:29
If I may ask, are these two questions the same : What percentage of the employees, that are 17 years old or more, are not vulnerable to Mycobacterial infection? and Percent employees, that are 17 years old or more, and are not vulnerable to Mycobacterial infection
User avatar
D
Carcass
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 30559
Own Kudos [?]: 36907 [0]
Given Kudos: 26113
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink] New post   26 Jul 2024, 00:48
Expert Reply
technically yes sir.

why ?
User avatar
S
adewale223
GRE Instructor
Joined: 06 Nov 2023
Posts: 88
Own Kudos [?]: 93 [0]
Given Kudos: 21
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink] New post   26 Jul 2024, 02:20
Looks a bit confusing the way the question is worded.
User avatar
D
Carcass
Verbal Expert
Joined: 18 Apr 2015
Posts: 30559
Own Kudos [?]: 36907 [0]
Given Kudos: 26113
Send PM
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink] New post   26 Jul 2024, 05:09
Expert Reply
The portion of the sentence is more clear. Hpwever, rereading the second one, could be opk as well
Prep Club for GRE Bot
gmatclubot
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are [#permalink]
26 Jul 2024, 05:09
Moderators:
adewale223
GRE Instructor
88 posts
bronaugust
GRE Forum Moderator
37 posts
BrushMyQuant
Moderator
1126 posts
VibhuAnurag
GRE Instructor
234 posts

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

Main navigation

Partners

GRE Resources

www.ets.org/gre | About | Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy | Prep Club for GRE Rules | Contact