Experience the Quality With Free GRE Exam Questions That Helps Candidates Pass

Mean = sum ÷ count. So sum = mean × count = 12 × 6 = 72. Choice C. This is a direct application of the mean formula. Common errors include dividing instead of multiplying. Double-check: 72 ÷ 6 = 12, which matches the given mean. GRE quantitative often embeds simple arithmetic in word form; translating carefully into formula prevents mistakes.

The clause “repackaging familiar tactics” indicates ordinariness rather than novelty. “Prosaic” means commonplace or unimaginative—exactly the critique. “Visionary,” “quixotic,” and “prescient” all connote forward-looking or fanciful originality, contradicting the sentence’s judgment. GRE items often pair rhetorical claims with undercutting evidence; here “innovation” is rhetorical, while the reality is mundane. Plugging “prosaic” preserves this contrast and aligns with the evaluative tone.

Compute counts from percentages. Candidate A: 0.40×200=800.40 \times 200 = 80. Candidate B: 0.35×200=700.35 \times 200 = 70. The remainder goes to C: 200−80−70=50200 - 80 - 70 = 50. The difference A vs. C: 80−50=3080 - 50 = 30, so choice C. A frequent GRE trap is to misread “the rest” or to round mid-calculation. Because totals here are clean multiples of 100, stick to exact integers. Another speed tactic: since percentages sum to 75% for A and B, C must be 25%. Then A (40%) minus C (25%) is 15% of 200 → 0.15×200=300.15 \times 200 = 30. This proportional shortcut avoids extra arithmetic. Always verify that category percentages add to 100%; if not, infer the missing share from the remainder. In data interpretation, translating percentages to counts and back is essential—maintain precision, reduce fractions when helpful, and check the logic of complements (“rest,” “others,” “remaining”) to avoid oversight.

GRE Analytical Writing (Argument) evaluates your ability to assess evidence and causal reasoning. The original claim asserts causation (music → sales increase) but offers only a temporal correlation (after music, sales rose). The strongest revision introduces a comparison group and isolates the purported causal factor’s timing: weekend sales (with music) rose, weekday sales (without music) did not. This quasi-control improves internal validity by reducing alternative explanations shared across all days (e.g., seasonal trends, marketing). Option B is irrelevant sentiment—compliments don’t establish causality. Option C undermines the claim by suggesting a broader regional trend could explain the increase. Option D is too coarse; many factors could raise annual revenue. Good AWA practice is to seek evidence that (1) aligns changes with the intervention, (2) contrasts outcomes where the intervention is absent, and (3) rules out plausible confounds. While not a randomized experiment, the weekend-weekday contrast is a reasonable strengthening step consistent with GRE objectives: critique assumptions, identify needed evidence, and improve argument structure.

Factor the quadratic: x2−5x+6=(x−2)(x−3)x^2 - 5x + 6 = (x-2)(x-3). The parabola opens upward. The inequality ≤0\le 0 holds between and at the roots, i.e., for 2≤x≤32 \le x \le 3. The integers in this closed interval are x=2x=2 and x=3x=3—two integers. Thus choice B. A common error is to report the interval but miscount its integer members (e.g., including 1 or 4). Another pitfall is reversing the interval when the quadratic is factored; remember that for an upward-opening parabola, the expression is negative (or zero) between the roots and positive outside. If unsure, test a point: at x=0x=0, the value is 6>06>0 (outside region); at x=2.5x=2.5, x2−5x+6=6.25−12.5+6=−0.25<0x^2-5x+6=6.25-12.5+6=-0.25<0 (inside region). Testing one inside and one outside solidifies the interval orientation. For inequalities, marking a sign chart along the number line can further reduce mistakes.