Each of the 19 members of the sales staff of a certain company is eligible for exactly three yearly bonuses...

OWNING THE DATASET

Let's start by understanding what we're working with. This table shows sales data for 19 staff members, with both current year sales and previous year sales, allowing us to analyze both total increases and percentage changes.

The key to "owning" this dataset is understanding the bonus structure:

• First bonus: \(\$5{,}000\) for staff with sales \(> \$200{,}000\)
• Second bonus: \(\$800\) for the top 2 staff members in total sales increase
• Third bonus: \(\$300\) for the top 2 staff members in percentage increase

Key insight: When looking at bonus-related questions, sorting the table different ways will instantly reveal patterns that would take too long to find manually. This will be crucial for our efficient approach.

ANALYZING THE STATEMENTS

Optimal Statement Order

Rather than tackling statements in order, let's solve them in the most efficient sequence: Statement 3 first, then Statement 2, and finally Statement 1. This creates a cascade of insights that simplifies our work.

Statement 3 Analysis

Statement 3 Translation:
Original: "Exactly 2 members will receive bonuses totaling exactly \(\$1{,}100\)"
What we're looking for:

• Staff members receiving exactly \(\$1{,}100\) in total bonuses
• Exactly 2 staff members must meet this criterion

In other words: Are there exactly 2 people who will get a total of \(\$1{,}100\) in bonuses?

Let's think about what combination of bonuses would equal \(\$1{,}100\):

• \(\$5{,}000\) alone? No, that's too much
• \(\$800\) alone? No, that's not enough
• \(\$300\) alone? No, that's not enough
• \(\$5{,}000 + \$800\)? No, that's too much
• \(\$5{,}000 + \$300\)? No, that's too much
• \(\$800 + \$300 = \$1{,}100\) ✓ This is our target combination!

So we're looking for staff members who receive both the second and third bonuses (but not the first).

Let's sort the table two ways:

1. First by "Total difference" (descending) to see the top 2 for the \(\$800\) bonus
2. Then by "Percent change" (descending) to see the top 2 for the \(\$300\) bonus

When we sort by total difference, we see staff members F and B at the top.
When we sort by percent change, we see staff members B and F at the top.

Teaching moment: Notice how sorting instantly reveals that the SAME two people (B and F) qualify for both the second and third bonuses! This pattern becomes immediately obvious through sorting, saving us from manual comparisons.

Since B and F each receive both the \(\$800\) and \(\$300\) bonuses (totaling \(\$1{,}100\) each), and there are exactly 2 such members, Statement 3 is YES.

Statement 2 Analysis

Statement 2 Translation:
Original: "Exactly 1 member will receive a bonus totaling exactly \(\$800\)"
What we're looking for:

• Staff members receiving exactly \(\$800\) in total bonuses
• Exactly 1 staff member must meet this criterion

In other words: Is there exactly 1 person who will get a total of \(\$800\) in bonuses?

Now our previous work pays off! We already know from Statement 3 that staff members B and F each receive both the second and third bonuses (\(\$800 + \$300 = \$1{,}100\)).

For someone to receive exactly \(\$800\), they would need to receive only the second bonus (for being in the top 2 for total sales increase). But we've already identified that both recipients of the second bonus (B and F) also receive the third bonus, meaning no one receives exactly \(\$800\).

Teaching moment: This is where strategic statement order creates massive efficiency. By solving Statement 3 first, we gained insights that made Statement 2 trivial to answer without any additional sorting or calculations.

Statement 2 is NO.

Statement 1 Analysis

Statement 1 Translation:
Original: "Exactly 6 members will receive a bonus totaling exactly \(\$5{,}000\)"
What we're looking for:

• Staff members receiving exactly \(\$5{,}000\) in total bonuses
• Exactly 6 staff members must meet this criterion

In other words: Are there exactly 6 people who will get a total of \(\$5{,}000\) in bonuses?

For a staff member to receive exactly \(\$5{,}000\), they would need to qualify for the first bonus (sales \(> \$200{,}000\)) but not qualify for either the second or third bonuses (otherwise they'd have more than \(\$5{,}000\)).

Let's sort the table by "Current year sales" in descending order to see who qualifies for the \(\$5{,}000\) bonus.

Scanning down the sorted list, we count staff members with sales \(> \$200{,}000\). As soon as we reach 7 such members, we can stop counting.

Teaching moment: Notice how we can stop counting as soon as we exceed 6. We don't need to identify all qualifying staff members - we just need to know if there are exactly 6 or not. This early termination strategy saves significant time.

Since we found 7 staff members with sales \(> \$200{,}000\) (not 6), Statement 1 is NO.

FINAL ANSWER COMPILATION

After analyzing all three statements:

• Statement 1: NO (7 staff members qualify for the \(\$5{,}000\) bonus, not 6)
• Statement 2: NO (No staff member receives exactly \(\$800\) in bonuses)
• Statement 3: YES (Exactly 2 staff members, B and F, receive exactly \(\$1{,}100\) in bonuses)

Therefore, the answer is: No, No, Yes

LEARNING SUMMARY

Skills We Used

1. Strategic Statement Order: By solving Statement 3 first, we created a cascade of insights that simplified the remaining statements. Always look for the statement that reveals the most information about the others.
2. Sorting as Primary Investigation Tool: We sorted the data different ways to instantly reveal patterns. This is significantly faster than manual calculations for each staff member.
3. Pattern Recognition: We identified that the same two staff members (B and F) qualified for both the second and third bonuses, creating a key insight.
4. Early Termination: For Statement 1, we stopped counting as soon as we exceeded 6 qualifying staff members, saving us from unnecessary work.
5. Minimum Necessary Work: We never calculated bonuses for all 19 staff members, only focusing on what was directly needed for each statement.

Common Mistakes We Avoided

1. Calculating Unnecessarily: We avoided calculating bonuses for all staff members, focusing only on the relevant subgroups.
2. Ignoring Pattern Relationships: By recognizing that B and F received both the second and third bonuses, we immediately knew Statement 2 was false without additional checks.
3. Fixed Statement Order: By solving statements in optimal order (3-2-1 instead of 1-2-3), we leveraged insights between statements and minimized redundant work.

Transferable Strategies for Table Analysis

1. Sort data strategically to reveal patterns that would be time-consuming to find manually
2. Solve statements in strategic order - not necessarily the order presented
3. Stop counting as soon as a threshold is reached that determines your answer
4. Let insights cascade between statements to minimize redundant work
5. Look for patterns that eliminate calculation needs

These principles apply to all GMAT table analysis questions and can transform a time-consuming problem into a quick and confident solution.