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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Apr 2020
Status:Founder & Quant Trainer
Affiliations: Prepster Education
Posts: 1546
Given Kudos: 172
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are
[#permalink]
10 Aug 2021, 05:36
10 Aug 2021, 05:36
5
13
Bookmarks
00:00
Question Stats:
38% (02:51) correct
61% (03:04) wrong based on 67 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.
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
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
In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are
[#permalink]
11 Aug 2021, 08:28
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.
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.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Apr 2020
Status:Founder & Quant Trainer
Affiliations: Prepster Education
Posts: 1546
Given Kudos: 172
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Re: In an investigation, it was found that 20% of the employees who are
[#permalink]
11 Aug 2021, 11:38
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
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 [ 16.01 KiB | Viewed 4863 times ]
