You have the right idea: when "much" is used as a noun modifier, it can only modify non-countable nouns. So it's fine to say, "I ate too much biryani last night", since biryani is non-countable. But you wouldn't say "too much voters support Candidate X" since voters are countable. But that's not quite what's happening in this question. "Much" is part of the phrase "however much", which modifies an entire clause ("voters may agree") -- not just a noun ("voters"). And that's completely fine -- you don't have to worry about countable vs. non-countable when the phrase "however much" is modifying a clause. For more on countable vs. non-countable modifiers on the EA, visit kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aN2pZ9ed3pzQiHU.html. If you want a detailed written explanation of the "however much voters may agree" question, check out gmatclub.com/forum/however-much-united-states-voters-may-agree-that-there-is-waste-in-243683.html?sid=86e39345ef683f104d7466c38683eeaa#p1879015. I hope that helps!

Thank you so much for sharing! You sound like so many people we've met over the years -- the test can drive you nuts and lead to some bad "self-talk". There are a ton of reasons why smart, talented, successful people struggle on this test -- "dumb" isn't usually one of them. :) Thank you again for watching!

Thank you so much for weighing in! Yeah, gap years can be hard, unless you have a really structured plan for using it well. They sound wonderful at first, but they can be like a vacation that lasts waaaaaaay too long. :) Thank you for watching, and have fun studying!

If we approach the information in the statement a bit more algebraically, it might help you see why there is only one value for a. If 2 < b < 6, then b - 6 will be negative. This means that we can treat |b - 6| in the same way was -(b - 6). Similarly, if 2 < b < 6, then b + 2 will be positive, so we can treat |b + 2| in the same way as (b + 2). This means that if 2 < b < 6, then a = |b - 6| + |b + 2| = -(b - 6) + (b + 2) = -b + 6 + b + 2 = 8. Since we only get one value of a when we use the information in statement (2), this statement is sufficient to answer the question. I hope that helps!

@@GMATNinjaTutoring thank you very much for the explanation

Thank you so much for this! In all honesty, I wasn't sure whether this video was a good idea. I feel really strongly about everything I say in it, but it's a very different thing than our usual KZfaq fun. So I'm glad that it resonated, and as always, we're grateful for the feedback -- positive or negative. Have fun studying, and thank you again!

@@GMATNinjaTutoring ❤

Haha, thank you so much! Don't worry: I haven't left you. In the past week or two, I've recorded three short videos, four full-length GMAT videos, and four MBA admissions videos. So you'll get tired of me very, very soon, as soon as our team is finished editing. :) Thank you again for the message! It put a smile on my face.

You're absolutely right that n is divisible by 2, but we're not sure whether we get an even or odd number when we divide n by 2. It's possible that n = 4, 8, 12, 16, 20.... and if this is the case, then n/2 will be even. However, it's also possible that n = 2, 6, 10, 14, 18.... and if this is the case then n/2 will be odd. Since we don't know which of the two lists n is in, we can't be sure whether n/2 is even or odd. I hope that helps!

So para 1 states that the plant harmones and regulatory molecules control how genes are expressed in a plant cell. It also states that Oligosaccharins are a newly identified class of regulatory molecules. Now we can easily see that E would be the answer. Hope that helps!

You're absolutely right that we could have books priced at 5, 10, 15, 15, 15 and that would satisfy the conditions given in the question. However, this question asks us to find the GREATEST possible value for the least expensive group. This means that pricing the books at 10, 10, 10, 10, 20 will give us a greater value for the least expensive book. We cannot make the least expensive book any more expensive than $10 and still satisfy the conditions given in the question, so (C) is the answer to this question. I hope that helps!

We took the geometry videos down since geometry is no longer a part of the GMAT and has never been a part of the Executive Assessment. The reference to the geometry videos in this episode unfortunately doesn't make sense any more. We're working on a new quant series to fix some of these old and outdated references, and we'll start releasing the first videos for that series in the coming weeks. I hope that helps!

Hi Vaibhav, Thank you for the kind words! I'm sure this was just a typo, but statement 2 says (x/x+1)<1. This statement will be true for all positive values of x, but it will also be true for any value of x greater than -1. We can combine these statements and say that statement 2 tells us x > -1. We can then say that if x = 5, x/(x + 1) = 5/6 and x/(x -1) = 5/4, so x/(x + 1) < x/(x -1). However, if x = 0.5 then x/(x + 1) = 1/3 and x/(x -1) = -1, so x/(x + 1) > x/(x -1). This means that statement 2 is insufficient to answer this question. I hope that helps!

Yup, it's a rough one! Don't lose any sleep over it at all -- as we get to the end of this particular videos, the questions get pretty nasty. They're a nice little workout if you're shooting for an elite quant score, but this is about as tough as things get on the GMAT. So there's no shame at all in struggling with those last few questions. Have fun studying, and thank you for watching!

Us too. That's why we put it in the video -- it's pretty cruel, and pretty much as hard as these get. So don't worry too much if you struggled on it. Have fun studying!

Thank you so much! It's funny, I don't think anybody else has compared Bransen to Ross before, but you definitely have a point. Usually, Americans are quick to point out that he sounds like Payton Manning, who is a famous American football quarterback. Nobody outside of the US has any idea who that guy is, though. :) Anyway, thank you for watching, and have fun studying!

Thank you for the kind words! Pretty much all of our CR videos model the same general principles, so you'll see the same things echoed throughout our CR series. So you'll likely find the entire series helpful. That said, this video focuses specifically on the dangers of anticipating answers in advance: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/esqVdJWluKrOZH0.html. Hopefully it resonates a bit. Thank you again for the kind words, and have fun studying!

In this question, we're asked what's the probability that exactly three of the four customers will purchase a pie. Let's say that we can call the four people A, B, C, and D to make things as simple as possible. Next, let's consider the scenario where A is the person who does not buy a pie, and B, C, and D all buy pies. To find the probability, we'd multiply (1/4)*(3/4)*(3/4)*(3/4) = 27/256 The reason we have to multiply by 4 is that we have to think about all the possible scenarios where one person does not buy a pie and the remaining three people do. There's a scenario in which B does not buy a pie and the other three do, there's a scenario in which C does not buy a pie and the other three do, and there's a scenario in which D does not buy a pie and the other three do. The probability we found in the first paragraph is the same as each of the probabilities of the other scenarios in which another person doesn't buy a pie but the remaining three people do. This means that we can multiply 27/256 by 4 to take into account the 4 possible scenarios in which one person does not buy a pie and three people do. This gives us the answer of 27/64. I hope that helps!

We don't need the information from the statement to exactly match the question in order to know whether the information provided is sufficient to answer the question. For example, if we were asked whether x >= 10 and statement 1 told us that x > 20, then we know that x could be 21, 22, 25, 45, 100, 432, 20.1 or any other of an infinite number of options -- x could be anything as long as it's greater than 20. If we know this then we definitely know that x >=10. This means that the information provided in this statement is sufficient to answer the question. In the question in the video, we're asked whether x >= 0. If we know that x > 0 then we know for sure that x >= 0, so this information is sufficient to answer the question. I hope that helps!

I think he meant to find maximum profit when Pitas are sold more than Kebabs. That way he took Pitas to be 1 more than half of 214 and kebabs to be 1 less that half. This give the max profit for 1st sentence. Does that make sense? So the max crossed 700 and most other values will give less than 700. So it’s not enough sufficient information.

To be fair, based on the limited data we have so far, the correlation between number of errors and score might be a bit stronger on the focus edition. But that doesn't change the upshot, and the "tl;dr" section of the video still applies! You still have to avoid getting stubborn on the questions that give you trouble. Otherwise, you'll find yourself rushing and making careless mistakes on questions that are easier for you, or you'll struggle to finish the sections on time.

Yup! We filmed this video before the GMAT Focus was a thing, so we use language that isn't totally consistent with the new test -- for example, Data Sufficiency is now part of Data Insights instead of quant, and we refer to the old score scale at times. Other than those bits of language, everything we say in our quant series still applies fully to the GMAT Focus Edition. We're releasing new versions of all of our videos over the next few months, just to avoid any confusion. But the content and advice won't be radically different for the new quant videos. I hope that helps a bit, and have fun studying!

From the first statement, we can show that Bo can make a profit greater than $700, but he can also make a profit less than $700. If we take the information in statement (1) and try to maximize the number of pittas Bo sold, rather than minimizing it as Bransen did in the video, we could say Bo sold 214 pittas. Even if we wildly overestimate the profit Bo made from each pitta and say he made a profit of $1 each time he sold a pitta, he will still make well under $700 profit. This means that from the information in statement (1), we can come up with one scenario in which Bo makes a profit greater than $700 and one scenario in which his profit is less than $700. This means statement (1) is not sufficient to answer this question. I hope that helps!

Hey @ashishsinha9035 -- thanks for checking out the channel, and so glad we could help!

Thank you so much, and enjoy the rest of the videos!

Thank you for watching! ❤️❤️❤️

Thank you so much, Sai! I really appreciate this sort of feedback. Amusingly enough, we already came to the same conclusion on our own, and we just upgraded the video and audio equipment for all of our tutors who are filming the next round of videos. We're all filming in our homes in various parts of the world, but at least we're all doing so with decent equipment now -- nothing super-fancy, but it's a nice upgrade on, say, AirPods. Since we just filmed these Data Insights videos, we probably won't replace them anytime terribly soon. But we're in the process of refreshing the quant videos right now, with more consistent audio and video quality. Once we're done with those, we might tackle verbal and/or DI again at some point, especially if we want to make adjustments to the content itself. Thank you again, Sai. Have fun studying! - Charles

@@GMATNinjaTutoring Thanks Charles.

Thank you again, Sai! You captured the essence of Alex nicely -- he has a calm, elegant mind. And an outstanding beard. Have fun studying!

Thank you @aashay38 for this insight! As you point out, investing some time at the beginning to decide on the best solution path can save you time down the road.

Thank you for your comment! We're so pleased you're enjoying the series. Your interpretation of Q9 is completely correct. This question is asking whether Jake paid more overall than Adam. If we have both pieces of information, we can determine that Adam paid more than Jake for the combined cost of the soup and the sales tax, meaning the answer to this question is (C). We did our best to write these questions as clearly and unambiguously as possible, but we'll be the first to admit that we don't have the resources or time to do the kind of checking that GMAT does on real questions. Looking back on this question a couple of years after we wrote it, we could have tweaked the language to try to eliminate the possibility that someone would query the question's intention. This won't happen on the real exam as the questions you'll see will go through a much more rigorous checking process to ensure they are clear and unambiguous. I hope that helps!

Thank you, Chirag! Keep us posted on your progress -- we always love good news. Have fun studying!

Yup! We filmed this video series before the GMAT Focus was a thing, so we use language that isn't totally consistent with the new test -- for example, Data Sufficiency is now part of Data Insights instead of quant, and we refer to the old score scale at times. Other than those bits of language, everything we say in our quant series still applies fully to the GMAT Focus Edition. (We deleted the geometry videos, obviously.) We're releasing new versions of all of our quant videos over the next few months, just to avoid any confusion. But the content and advice won't be radically different for the new quant videos. I hope that helps a bit, and have fun studying!

@@GMATNinjaTutoring thanks so much for the reply and clarification

Thank you so much!

The first paragraph of the passage tells us that FA's next exhibit MUST contain art from one of its areas of strength: 20th-century US painting, 20th-century jewelry, and art from 14th-century South America. If a piece of art is not from one of these three areas, it cannot be part of FA's next exhibit. We're later told FA's piece must not be fully representational. The first option in the table is a large abstract sculpture by Louise Nevelson (female, US, 20th c.). While this is an abstract work, from the USA and from the 20th century, it is not contained in one of the three categories listed above. This means it cannot be part of FA's next exhibit. The semiabstract, semirepresentational art nouveau jewelry by René Lalique (male, France, 20th c.) does fit into one of the three categories; it is 20th-century jewelry. Even though it is not fully abstract and is not a piece by a US woman, it fulfills all the other criteria FA is looking for. This makes this piece the correct answer for FA. I hope that helps!

Thank you much🎉​@@GMATNinjaTutoring

Yes, you're right. That was a slip-up in the notation there. Instead of saying L/S > 3/10, we should have said L/S >= 3/10. It doesn't make a difference to the final answer, but it's important to be accurate with these things. Thank you for pointing it out!