The PQ&R Corporation has developed a collection of training materials and skills tests for activities that accurately represent the types...
GMAT Multi Source Reasoning : (MSR) Questions
The PQ&R Corporation has developed a collection of training materials and skills tests for activities that accurately represent the types of tasks performed by employees in a production environment. Before any instruction is given, each trainee is asked to perform the training battery-a series of tasks for which they are about to receive training. Immediately on completion of instruction, trainees are again asked to perform the training battery to assess the effectiveness of instruction. After performing the battery for the second time, the trainees become employees of PQ&R. On completion of their six-month introductory period of employment, trainees are required to perform the training battery a third time.
For each of the following statements about the scores in Session 1, Session 2, and Session 3, select Yes if the statement is supported by the information provided. Otherwise, select No.
OWNING THE DATASET
Understanding Source A: Text Source - Training Program Procedures
| Information from Dataset | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "PQ&R Corporation has developed a collection of training materials and skills tests for activities that accurately represent the types of tasks performed by employees in a production environment" |
|
| "Before any instruction is given, each trainee is asked to perform the training battery—a series of tasks for which they are about to receive training" |
|
| "Immediately on completion of instruction, trainees are again asked to perform the training battery to assess the effectiveness of instruction" |
|
| "After performing the battery for the second time, the trainees become employees of PQ&R" |
|
| "On completion of their six-month introductory period of employment, trainees are required to perform the training battery a third time" |
|
Summary: PQ&R Corporation uses a three-stage assessment system (before training, after training, and six months later) with the same "training battery" to measure how well their production training program works and whether skills are retained on the job.
Understanding Source B: Text and Visual - Individual Trainee Report Format
| Information from Dataset | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "The scores range from 0 to 100 points corresponding to how well the trainee performed the tasks in the battery" |
|
| "The graphic consists of a unique trainee identifier (composed of his or her session number and a letter)" |
|
| "that trainee's pretraining and posttraining scores, and a plus sign (+) indicating that trainee's six-month score" |
|
| "The pretraining score is typically the lowest" |
|
| Example shown: Trainee 1a scores - Pretraining: 26, Posttraining: 72, Six-month: 94 |
|
Summary: Source B explains how individual trainee performance is displayed using a 0-100 scale across the three assessment points from Source A, with the example showing substantial improvement from pretraining (26) through posttraining (72) to six months (94).
Understanding Source C: Text and Charts - Training Session Results
| Information from Dataset | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "The results for the three training sessions conducted in the most recent calendar year" |
|
| "Each session had exactly eight trainees and no trainee was in more than one session" |
|
| "The results for each session are given twice—on the left in pretraining-score order and on the right in posttraining-score order" |
|
Chart Analysis:
- The bar charts show stacked bars with black (pretraining) and blue (posttraining) sections
- Plus signs (+) above bars indicate six-month scores
- Key patterns observed: All 24 trainees show improvement (blue sections visible on all bars)
- Inference: The training program has 100% success rate in improving scores
- Linkage to Source A: The charts confirm all trainees completed the full program including the six-month assessment, suggesting 100% employee retention
- Linkage to Source B: The visual format exactly matches the description in Source B, with the same color coding and (+) symbol usage
Summary: Source C shows that across three training sessions of 8 people each, all 24 trainees improved their scores and remained employed through the six-month assessment, with the dual ordering revealing that initial skill levels don't predict final performance rankings.
Overall Summary
The PQ&R Corporation training program uses a standardized three-stage assessment system (pretraining, posttraining, and six-month) to track skill development for production employees. Key insights from the complete dataset:
- Training produces dramatic improvements - scores roughly double or triple from baseline
- All 24 trainees across three sessions showed improvement and completed the full program, indicating 100% retention
- Skills continue developing on the job, with six-month scores consistently exceeding posttraining scores
- Initial skill level doesn't determine final success - the ranking order changes significantly between pretraining and posttraining assessments
Question Analysis
In Plain Terms: I need to evaluate whether three specific mathematical/statistical claims about the training scores are supported by the data shown in the charts.
Key Constraints:
- Must evaluate each statement as Yes (supported) or No (not supported)
- Must use data from all three training sessions
- Must examine pretraining and posttraining score relationships
Answer Type Needed: Multi-statement verification requiring numerical comparison and correlation assessment
Connecting to Our Analysis
Description: The analysis mentions 'Training produces large score improvements - roughly doubling or tripling from baseline' and 'Initial skill level doesn't determine final ranking', but I need specific score values from Source C charts to verify exact ratios and ranges.
Can Answer from Analysis Alone: Partially - Statement 1 can be inferred from 'tripling' mention, Statement 2 from 'ordering changes' observation, but Statement 3 requires visual data examination.
Extracting Relevant Findings
Description: Evaluating three statements about training score patterns across sessions
Hypothesis: Each statement makes a specific claim about score relationships that can be verified against the visual data
Individual Statement/Option Evaluations
Statement 1 Evaluation
In Plain Terms: Statement 1: Did any trainee improve their score by more than 3x?
- Analysis: From charts, examining Session 2 which provides the best candidates due to low pretraining scores
- Evidence: Trainee 2a shows pretraining \(\approx 14\) and posttraining \(\approx 66\), where \(66 \gt 3 \times 14 = 42\)
- Additional Evidence: Trainee 2b shows pretraining \(\approx 18\) and posttraining \(\approx 78\), where \(78 \gt 3 \times 18 = 54\)
- Conclusion: Multiple trainees meet this condition. Therefore, Statement 1 is supported.
Statement 2 Evaluation
In Plain Terms: Statement 2: Do higher pretraining scores predict higher posttraining scores in Session 1?
- Analysis: Examining Session 1 data ordered by pretraining score
- Evidence: As pretraining scores increase from trainee 1a (\(\approx 26\)) to 1h (\(\approx 56\)), the posttraining scores generally increase from approximately 72 to 88
- Pattern: Despite some minor fluctuations, the overall trend is clearly positive, with higher pretraining scores tending to correspond with higher posttraining scores
- Conclusion: Therefore, Statement 2 is supported.
Statement 3 Evaluation
In Plain Terms: Statement 3: Is Session 2's pretraining score range the smallest?
- Analysis: Calculating ranges (highest - lowest) for pretraining scores
- Session 1 Range: \(56 - 26 = 30\)
- Session 2 Range: \(42 - 14 = 28\)
- Session 3 Range: \(50 - 22 = 28\)
- Conclusion: Session 2 has a range of 28, which equals Session 3's range and is smaller than Session 1's range of 30. Therefore, Session 2 does have the least range of pretraining scores, and Statement 3 is supported.
Systematic Checking
Description: Cross-verification of findings against visual data and analysis
Points:
- Statement 1: Multiple trainees in Session 2 (2a, 2b) show clear evidence of \(\gt 3x\) improvement ratios
- Statement 2: Session 1 demonstrates positive correlation between pretraining and posttraining scores with general upward trend
- Statement 3: Visual inspection confirms Session 2 has the smallest pretraining score range at 28
Final Answer
- Statement 1: Yes
- Statement 2: Yes
- Statement 3: Yes
For at least one trainee, the posttraining score was greater than 3 times the pretraining score.
The data for Session 1 exhibit a positive correlation between pretraining and posttraining scores.
For the three sessions, the range of pretraining scores is least for Session 2.