Ahmed, Farida, Tala, and Yousef are debating how to measure Summer Olympics achievement by countries. Ahmed maintains that the best...
GMAT Multi Source Reasoning : (MSR) Questions
Ahmed, Farida, Tala, and Yousef are debating how to measure Summer Olympics achievement by countries.
- Ahmed maintains that the best measure of overall Olympic achievement by a country is the most straightforward: a simple count of all medals won by that country.
- Farida observes that more populous countries have more potential Olympic athletes and argues that a fair measure of overall Olympic achievement must in some way include consideration of a country's population.
- Tala argues that the only real Olympic achievement by an athlete is victory. Gold medals (for first place) should be counted; silver and bronze medals (for second and third place, respectively) should not.
- Yousef recommends counting each silver medal as half a gold medal, and each bronze medal as half a silver medal.
Suppose that another person, Aisha, asserts that weighted totals, calculated according to the method indicated in the Graph tab, should provide the sole criterion of Olympic achievement. For each of the following participants in the Discussion, select Compatible if the participant's stated recommendation is compatible with Aisha's measure of Olympic success. Otherwise, select Incompatible.
OWNING THE DATASET
Understanding Source A: Text Source - Discussion on Olympic Achievement Measures
| Information from Dataset | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Ahmed maintains that the best measure of overall Olympic achievement by a country is the most straightforward: a simple count of all medals won by that country." |
|
| "Farida observes that more populous countries have more potential Olympic athletes and argues that a fair measure of overall Olympic achievement must in some way include consideration of a country's population." |
|
| "Tala argues that the only real Olympic achievement by an athlete is victory. Gold medals (for first place) should be counted; silver and bronze medals (for second and third place, respectively) should not." |
|
| "Yousef recommends counting each silver medal as half a gold medal, and each bronze medal as half a silver medal." |
|
Summary: Four individuals debate different ways to measure Olympic success, ranging from counting all medals equally to counting only gold medals, with considerations for population size and weighted scoring systems.
Understanding Source B: Table - 2008 Summer Olympics Rankings of 6 Countries
Table Analysis:
• The table shows rankings for 6 countries using 5 different measurement methods from the 2008 Olympics
• Rankings range from 1st (best) to 6th (worst) within this group only
• Key Pattern: Country C ranked 1st in total medals but 6th in gold medals per capita - extreme variation!
• Inference: Country C won many medals overall but few gold medals relative to its population (suggesting large population and many silver/bronze medals)
• Inference: Countries G and H tied for 1st in gold medals but rank differently in other measures
Linkage to Source A:
• The table implements several approaches debated in Source A:
- "Total medals" column = Ahmed's approach
- "Total gold medals" column = Similar to Tala's gold-only focus
- Per capita columns = Farida's population-adjusted approach
- "Weighted medals per capita" = A weighting system like Yousef's (but using different weights: \(\mathrm{gold = 2, silver = 4, bronze}\))
Important Detail: The weighted formula here (\(\mathrm{1 gold = 2 silver = 4 bronze}\)) differs from Yousef's proposal (\(\mathrm{1 gold = 2 silver = 8 bronze}\))
Summary: The 2008 rankings table demonstrates how the same countries can rank completely differently depending on which measurement method is used, validating the debate from Source A about multiple valid approaches to measuring Olympic success.
Understanding Source C: Graph - Olympic Point Totals 2000-2012
Graph Analysis:
• Bar chart shows point totals for Countries C, D, and H across four Summer Olympics (2000-2012)
• Point system: \(\mathrm{Gold = 4 points, Silver = 2 points, Bronze = 1 point}\)
• Key Pattern: Country C shows dramatic decline from \(\mathrm{73 points (2000) to 32 points (2012)}\)
• Key Pattern: Country H had unusually low performance in 2008 (\(\mathrm{24 points}\)) compared to other years (\(\mathrm{~47 points}\))
• Inference: Country D maintained steady performance while Country C declined significantly
• Countries B, E, and G (not shown) consistently scored lower than Country D
Linkage to Source A:
• This point system represents another weighted approach, different from both Yousef's proposal and Source B's weighting
• Shows yet another way to measure Olympic achievement beyond those debated in Source A
Linkage to Source B:
• Major Contradiction: Country H ranked 1st (tie) in gold medals in 2008 (Source B) but had its worst point total that same year (Source C)
• This shows how Country H won many golds but few total medals in 2008
• Country C's high point totals in early years align with its tendency to win many total medals (as seen in Source B)
Summary: The longitudinal graph reveals performance trends over time and introduces yet another measurement system, while also highlighting how Country H's apparent 2008 success in gold medals masked an overall poor performance that year.
Overall Summary
- The three sources reveal that Olympic achievement has no universal definition - at least 6 different measurement approaches appear across the sources
- The choice of measurement system can completely reverse country rankings, as shown by Country C ranking 1st in total medals but 6th in gold medals per capita, or Country H simultaneously achieving the most gold medals while having its worst point total in 2008
- Different weighting systems (Yousef's proposal, Source B's formula, and Source C's point system) produce contradictory assessments of the same performance
- Population size emerges as a major factor, with larger countries dominating total medal counts but potentially ranking poorly on per capita measures
Question Analysis
The task requires determining compatibility between each participant's medal counting recommendation and Aisha's weighted point system, where \(\mathrm{Gold=4\,points, Silver=2\,points, Bronze=1\,point}\), creating a \(\mathrm{4:2:1}\) ratio.
Connecting to Our Analysis
Aisha's measure uses a weighted point system as shown in the Graph with specific values: Gold medals worth 4 points, Silver medals worth 2 points, and Bronze medals worth 1 point. This creates a weighted total as the sole criterion without population adjustments.
Extracting Relevant Findings
Each participant proposes a different approach to medal counting that must be evaluated against Aisha's weighted point system for compatibility.
Individual Statement/Option Evaluations
Statement 1 Evaluation
- Participant: Ahmad advocates for a simple count where all medals are valued equally
- Approach: \(\mathrm{1:1:1}\) ratio treating all medal types as having identical value
- Evidence: This equal weighting approach is fundamentally incompatible with Aisha's \(\mathrm{4:2:1}\) weighted system
- Conclusion: Incompatible due to fundamental difference in medal valuation
Statement 2 Evaluation
- Participant: Farida argues for per capita consideration based on population
- Approach: Incorporating demographic adjustments into the medal counting process
- Evidence: Since Aisha's measure uses weighted totals as the sole criterion without any population adjustment, Farida's population-based approach introduces variables not present in Aisha's system
- Conclusion: Incompatible due to addition of population variables
Statement 3 Evaluation
- Participant: Yousef recommends counting silver as 0.5 gold and bronze as 0.5 silver
- Approach: Creates bronze as 0.25 gold, establishing a ratio of \(\mathrm{1:0.5:0.25}\)
- Evidence: This ratio when scaled up (multiplied by 4) becomes \(\mathrm{4:2:1}\), exactly matching Aisha's point system weighting
- Conclusion: Compatible due to perfect proportional alignment
Systematic Checking
Comparing each approach to the \(\mathrm{4:2:1}\) standard: Ahmad's \(\mathrm{1:1:1}\) equal weighting does not match the required proportional differences. Farida's per capita method introduces population variables not present in Aisha's system. Yousef's proportional system \(\mathrm{1:0.5:0.25}\) scales directly to \(\mathrm{4:2:1}\), creating perfect alignment with the weighted point system.
Final Answer
- Statement 1: Incompatible
- Statement 2: Incompatible
- Statement 3: Compatible
Ahmad
Farida
Yousef