Executive Assessment Sample Questions

Solution:

Let’s first define their present-day ages.

Let A = Abba’s age today and M = Mabel’s age today.

Next, let’s define their ages 10 years ago:

A – 10 = Abba’s age 10 years ago and M – 10 = Mabel’s age 10 years ago.

Next, we organize the above information into a matrix.

Now we can translate some of the information in the question stem into equations.

Since Abba is four times as old as Mabel, we create our first equation as the following:

A = 4M

Since, 10 years ago, Abba was nine times as old as Mabel, we create our second equation as the following:

A – 10 = 9(M – 10)

A – 10 = 9M – 90

A = 9M – 80

Since A = 4M, we can substitute 4M for H in the second equation, and we have the following:

4m = 9M – 80

5M = 80

M = 16

Mabel’s present age is 16.

Answer: B

Solution:

Let’s first determine the amount of interest earned each interest period. Since there are two interest periods per year, the interest earned each period is 4%/2 = 2% = 0.02. Let’s now calculate the interest earned in the first interest period:

10,000 x 0.02 = $200

Thus, the value of the investment after the first interest period is 10,000 + 200 = $10,200.

Next, let’s determine the interest earned in the second interest period:

10,200 x 0.02

To determine the product of 10,200 and 0.02, we temporarily remove the decimals while doing the multiplication:

10,200 x 2 = 20,400

Bringing the two decimal places back to the product, we have 204.

Thus, the value of the investment after one year is 10,200 + 204 = $10,404.

Answer: D

Solution:

We see that 16 is the common factor in all five of the products; thus, 16 can be factored out.

43 × 16 + 32 × 16 + 21 × 16 + 10 × 16 – 6 × 16

(43 + 32 + 21 + 10 – 6) × 16

100 × 16

1,600

Answer: D

Solution:

We know that “percent” literally means “per 100.” In other words, “percent” means “divide by 100.”

Let’s translate this expression into an equation: “One million percent of y” can be translated to

1,000,000/100 * y

This can be reduced to 10,000y.

Answer: C

Solution:

Let’s begin by putting the set in numerical order: {3, 4, 10, 10, 11, 12}.

We do not know where to place x, but by experimenting with values of x, we can see that knowing the actual value of x is unnecessary for us to calculate the median.

For example, if x = 1, we would have {1, 3, 4, 10, 10, 11, 12}. In an odd set of numbers, the median is the middle number in the set, and thus here the median would be 10.

What if x = 2? We can see that the median would not change: {2, 3, 4, 10, 10, 11, 12}; the middle number would still be 10.

What if x = 10? We would have {3, 4, 10, 10, 10, 11, 12}, and the median would still be 10.

What if x = 11? We would have {3, 4, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12}, and the median would still be 10.

Interestingly, let x equal any number, say 55; the set {3, 4, 10, 10, 11, 12, 55} would still have a median of 10, since 10 would still be the middle value in the set.

Answer: C

Solution:

Question Stem Analysis:

For the number 7.xy, we need to determine the digit in the hundredths place (the value of y).

Statement One Alone:

If 7.xy were rounded to the nearest tenth, the new number would be 7.2.

Because we don’t know the value of 7.xy, we don’t know the value of y. For example, 7.xy could be 7.24, since 7.24 rounded to the nearest tenth is 7.2. But 7.xy also could be 7.19, since 7.19 rounded to the nearest tenth is 7.2. Because we’ve found two different possible values for the digit in the hundredths place of 7.xy, both of which satisfy statement one, statement one alone is not sufficient to answer the question.

Eliminate answer choices A and D.

Statement Two Alone:

If 7.xy were rounded to the nearest whole number, the new number would be 7.

This information tells us that x is less than 5. However, this information does not tell us anything about y. For example, 7.xy could be 7.15, or it could be 7.26. In both cases, when rounded to the nearest units digit, the number becomes 7. Statement two alone is not sufficient to determine the value of y.

Eliminate answer choice B.

Statements One and Two Together:

Both statements together do not provide us with any additional information to determine the value of y. 7.xy could be any number from 7.15 to 7.24, inclusive. All of these numbers would round to 7.2 if rounded to the nearest tenth and would round to 7 if rounded to the nearest unit.

Answer: E

Explanation:

The homeowners association member is proposing a plan. What plan? To place cayenne pepper around foundations of houses.

The goal of the plan is to reduce the number of mice in the community.

Has she considered the plan well? Is there some way that the plan might result in the problem it is meant to solve or a similar problem? Might placing cayenne pepper around houses actually result in an increase in the number of mice?

(A) Incorrect. Notice that the conclusion is not that reducing the number of mice in the community is important for some reason, such as that mice carry and transmit diseases.

The conclusion is that, by placing cayenne pepper around the foundations of houses, people in the community will reduce the number of mice in the community. In other words, the conclusion is simply that the plan for reducing the number of mice in the community will work.

Of course, the plan could work regardless of whether mice carry more diseases than other rodents carry.

So, what this choice says is not an assumption upon which the argument relies.

(B) Incorrect. The conclusion of the argument is that, by placing cayenne pepper around the foundations of their houses, people will reduce the number of mice in their community.

The evidence used is that mice are repelled by cayenne pepper. In other words, the evidence is that mice don’t like cayenne pepper and avoid it.

Could the plan work even if mice WOULD become ill if they were to eat the cayenne pepper?

Common sense tells us that mice would not eat the pepper, and that, even if they did, for some insane reason, eat the pepper and become ill, they would continue to be repelled by cayenne pepper, in which case the plan could work.

So, the argument does not depend on the assumption that mice WOULD NOT become ill if they were to eat the cayenne pepper placed around a house.

(C) Incorrect. The conclusion is simply that the plan for reducing the number of mice in the community will work.

Placing cayenne pepper around the foundations of houses could result in a reduction in the number of mice in the community regardless of whether there are more, fewer, or just as many mice as there were in the community a few years ago. In other words, the number of mice present does not affect whether mice in general are repelled by cayenne pepper.

So, arriving at the conclusion that the plan will work does not require assuming that there are more mice in the community than there were a few years ago.

(D) Correct. As you now know, one common assumption that authors typically make is that a plan to solve a problem will not itself result in the same problem in a new way.

In this case, the homeowners association member assumes that placing cayenne pepper around the foundations of houses will not somehow exacerbate the mouse issue. After all, if placing cayenne pepper around the foundations of houses would somehow result in an increase in the number of mice, then the argument would fall apart.

So, imagine if predators, which are necessary for keeping mouse populations controlled, WOULD completely avoid an area with a scent of cayenne pepper? In that case, the plan to solve the problem would itself cause the same problem in a new way because, without the predators, which are necessary for keeping mouse populations controlled, the mouse population would be uncontrolled. The argument would fall apart.

Therefore, the author must assume that predators, which are necessary for keeping mouse populations controlled, would NOT completely avoid an area with a scent of cayenne pepper.

(E) Incorrect. The author’s conclusion is that “if we all place cayenne pepper around the foundations of our houses, we will certainly reduce the number of mice in our community.”

Notice that this conclusion, and the argument in general, is completely about reducing the number of mice in the community, and that the plan for reducing the number of mice could work regardless of whether cayenne pepper repels ants.

Therefore, the author does not need to assume that cayenne pepper repels not only mice but also ants.

Answer: D

Explanation:

Background: Although campfires are illegal in Aurora Falls National Park, campfires often start forest fires in the park.

Premise: Tomorrow, park rangers will begin using aerial drones that detect campfires and relay coordinates of campfire locations to park rangers, who will go to and extinguish the campfires.

Conclusion: Surely, going forward, only rarely will campfires start forest fires in the park.

Notice that this question is clearly a Weaken the Argument question, because the question stem asks, “Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument above?”

The author has presented a plan. Any time an author presents a plan, she assumes that the plan will work. In other words, she assumes that there are not variables that exist that will spoil the plan. In the TTP Course, we refer to such variables as “malicious variables.” When an author presents a plan, she assumes that there are no malicious variables.

What has the author failed to consider? What malicious variable has gone unnoticed?

(A) Incorrect. What this answer choice says strengthens the argument.

If Aurora Falls National Park has provided its rangers with extensive training in the safe operation of aerial drones as well as in the best practices in campfire extinguishment, then the rangers have some important training related to the plan presented in the argument. That fact makes it likely that the plan will be successful.

Of course, we’re not seeking a strengthener. We’re seeking an answer choice that weakens the argument.

(B) Incorrect. Notice that the conclusion of the argument is not that, in general, forest fires will rarely occur in the park. It’s that, going forward, only rarely will campfires start forest fires in the park.

So, the fact that a significant percentage of the forest fires that occur in Aurora Falls National park are not started by campfires does not affect the support for the conclusion at all, because even if things other than campfires start forest fires in the park, the evidence presented still supports the conclusion, which is specifically about forest fires started by campfires.

So, this choice has no effect on the support for the conclusion.

(C) Incorrect. The conclusion is simply that, going forward, only rarely will campfires start forest fires in the park.

Our job in answering the question is to weaken the support for that conclusion.

This choice tells us how much destruction forest fires caused by campfires have caused in the past. Does that information indicate that putting out campfires won’t prevent them from starting forest fires “going forward”? Of course not. No matter how much destruction campfires have caused in the past, putting them out could prevent them from causing forest fires in the future.

So, what this answer choice says does not affect the support for the conclusion or weaken the argument at all.

(D) Correct. What this answer choice says certainly weakens the argument.

The argument’s conclusion is that, going forward, only rarely will campfires start forest fires in the park.

So, imagine that one of the drones spots a campfire, and a park ranger mobilizes to get to that location. If, as this choice says, park rangers require 30 minutes on average to reach most park locations, during which time campfire sparks can easily start forest fires, then a campfire could easily start a forest fire prior to the ranger’s reaching the campfire.

So, this choice provides a good reason to question whether the plan will work. Notice also that this answer choice presents a malicious variable that the author has failed to consider.

(E) Incorrect. If anything, what this answer choice says strengthens the argument.

After all, if the thermal cameras on the aerial drones utilize advanced heat sensors that some militaries deploy on satellites used to detect the launch of surface-based missiles, then these heat sensors must be pretty sophisticated. If the heat sensors are sophisticated, then the aerial drones equipped with these thermal cameras would likely do a good job of detecting campfires in the park. Therefore, given what this choice says, we have more conviction that the plan will work.

Of course, in answering this question, we’re not seeking a strengthener; we need to weaken the argument.

Answer: D

Explanation:

Fact 1: Dolphins have been observed swimming at speeds in excess of 50 kilometers per hour in ocean water.

Fact 2: However, when biologists analyze the muscles of dolphins, all agree that dolphins do not have sufficient muscle mass to generate enough energy to propel their bodies at 50 kilometers per hour through water.

Think about it. Dolphins have been observed swimming at speeds in excess of the speeds one would expect them to be able to achieve given their muscle mass.

What could explain this peculiar situation? What information would resolve this apparent paradox?

(A) Correct. What this answer choice says resolves the apparent paradox.

If dolphins can ride waves, utilizing the waves’ energies to propel themselves through water, then this fact would explain why dolphins have been observed swimming at speeds in excess of 50 kilometers per hour in ocean water, even though their own bodies can’t produce enough power for them to reach those speeds.

Imagine, for example, that a dolphin is swimming at, let’s say, 25 kilometers per hour and riding a wave moving at 25 kilometers per hour. In this case, the dolphin could be moving through the ocean at 50 kilometers per hour.

We see that there is no paradox after all. Dolphins ride waves to make use of power that they cannot produce on their own.

(B) Incorrect. Notice that this choice explains the wrong thing.

This choice may explain why dolphins swim so fast: maybe they swim fast to catch fast moving fish and squid.

Of course, in answering this question, we’re not seeking to explain why they swim that fast. Rather, we’re seeking to explain how they swim that fast.

(C) Incorrect. We’re seeking to explain how dolphins can travel more than 50 kilometers per hour through the ocean despite the fact their bodies can’t produce energy sufficient for them to reach such speeds.

What this answer choice says, that scientists have determined that sharks of some species generate enough energy to swim at speeds in excess of 50 kilometers per hour in ocean water, can’t help us resolve the paradox because it doesn’t change what we know about dolphins.

Given that this answer choice says, we’re still wondering how dolphins reach speeds in excess of 50 kilometers per hour in the ocean.

(D) Incorrect. The fact that dolphins have been observed swimming at speeds far lower than 50 kilometers per hour in ocean water does not help us explain how dolphins have been observed moving at speeds in excess of 50 kilometers per hour in the ocean.

OK, so they don’t always swim faster than 50 kilometers per hour. That fact does not change the fact that we have to explain that sometimes dolphins do swim at speeds greater than 50 kilometers per hour.

We can’t resolve a paradox by showing that not all situations are characterized by the paradox that we have to explain.

(E) Incorrect. What this choice says explains the wrong thing.

What it says may explain how dolphins navigate effectively while moving at high speeds: maybe they use echolocation to navigate effectively at high speeds.

However, it does not explain how dolphins move at speeds in excess of 50 mph in the ocean.

Answer: A

Explanation:

Some of the incorrect versions of the sentence in this question are clearly grammatically flawed. However, other incorrect versions are grammatically perfect and are incorrect only because they convey illogical meanings. So, checking only for grammar errors is not sufficient for arriving at the correct answer. Determining which choice is the correct answer requires reading each version in its entirety to see whether what it conveys makes sense.

(A) Incorrect. This version is grammatically perfect. The plural subject “ostriches” agrees with the plural verb “are,” the plural pronoun “they” logically refers to the plural “ostriches,” and the rest of the sentence is free of grammar errors.

Notice, however, that this version conveys a nonsensical meaning.

The word “but” is used to communicate that two ideas connected by “but” contrast with each other, but in this case, the two ideas connected by “but” would never contrast with each other.

The two ideas connected by “but” are “Ostriches are able to run fast for very long distances” and “they are able to escape.” Of course, being able to run fast and being able to escape don’t contrast with each other. Instead, the fact that ostriches are able to run fast explains why they are able to escape. So, saying that ostriches are able to run fast “but” they are able to escape does not make sense.

(B) Incorrect. This version is clearly grammatically flawed. It starts off mentioning the plural “ostriches,” but then says, “it is able to escape.” The singular pronoun “it” cannot refer to the plural “ostriches.” So, “it” has nothing to refer to.

(C) Incorrect. This version is grammatically correct. However, by reading this version in its entirety, we can see that it conveys a meaning that does not make sense.

Since the word “to” indicates purpose, in the context of a sentence like this one, “to be able” means “for the purpose of being able.”

So, this version conveys the meaning “for the purpose of being able to run fast for very long distances, ostriches are able to escape.” Of course, that meaning does not make sense. Ostriches would not be able to escape in order to run fast for long distances. Rather, they would be able to run fast for long distances in order to be able to escape. So, this version conveys a meaning that is basically the reverse of what would make sense.

(D) Incorrect. This version is clearly grammatically flawed because the singular subject, “an ostrich,” does not agree with the plural verb “are.” We can more easily see the error by crossing off the wording between the subject and the verb.

An ostrich, able to run fast for very long distances, are able to escape

(E) Correct. This version is grammatically perfect. The singular subjects “it” and “ostrich” agree with the singular verb “is,” the singular pronoun “it” logically refers to the singular “ostrich,” and the rest of the sentence is free of grammar errors.

Furthermore, the meaning conveyed by this version makes sense.

So, we can see that this choice is the correct answer.

Answer: E